A ‘personal, racist, treasonous’ pattern of politics
By Dan
Post of the Day
Note from Dan: This comes courtesy of Wayne Goodman, who was responding to Frank’s comment, re: Dodd-Frank, that “I might have been more favorable to the Dodd-Frank bill if it were anybody else but Dodd, and Frank.” It raises the question: Should the Democrats name the legislation to raise the minimum wage Rubio Cruz Gohmert?
“Heyfrank finally tells the truth and illustrates perfectly what the problem has been for the past four years in this country. He might have agreed with the Dodd/Frank bill except for the names attached to it. For the Republicons, led by McConnell, Boehner, Cantor, Rove, etc. , no matter what the actual provisions were of any bill or any program or proposal made by President Obama (or Barney Frank or Chris Dodd or Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi) they were automatically against it.
Health care as proposed by their think tank at Heritage and enacted at the suggestion of their nominee Romney in Mass.? — they were against it because it came from Obama.
Funding for infrastructure development and upgrades — historically a slam dunk with Republicans? Nah Obama proposed it.
The jobs act which contained provisions for enhancing job opportunities for returning veterans and tax breaks for small business owners who created new jobs, things which Republicons have advocated forever? Nope, Obama proposed it.
Continuing the war on terror in Afghanistan and developing the intelligence programs and use of drone strikes against Al Qaeda, basically a neocon Republicon position? Nosiree, Obama wants it.
The litany is long and never-ending. No matter what the ideas or provisions are, no matter how right they are, no matter how good they would be for the country, no matter if Republicons supported them in the past, if they came from any of the above mentioned people, Republicons are automatically opposed to them. Why?
Because their only job was to make Obama a one-term President. It has been personal, racist, treasonous, and a disaster for our country.
So heyfrank, if you could be in favor of the bill and what it does, why does it matter to you who proposed it or whose name is on it?”
February 25, 2013 - 12:00 PM
because everything from obama is garbage
gee, dano and wayne,
I always thought that bills passed by the senate and house often take on the names of the respective senate/house leaders who guided them through the passage process. Do you think that process ought to change?
hey dano and wayne, if a republican gets elected president in 2016, are you libs, and organizations like the RTs, going to try and make that president a one-termer?
“It has been personal, racist, treasonous, and a disaster for our country.”
Are you talking about Bush or Obama? This blog ridiculed Bush and Cuccinelli and Palin and Bachman, etc without any restraint. Was that a disaster for our country? Was it personal? Treasonous?
So it treasonous to criticize a politician now.
“So heyfrank, if you could be in favor of the bill and what it does, why does it matter to you who proposed it or whose name is on it?”
Way to not answer the question, heyfrank.
henry, you hit the nail on the head. libs are never without their deck full of race cards, and they fling’em out at the first sign of opposition to whatever it is they want to do. i venture that if obama were 100% white, the libs would still be throwing the race cards around, and calling those opposed to his and their policies as “racist”. they are hate-mongers of the first order.
last time i checked dano and wayne, dodd and frank are both white, i know neither of them personally, and i have committed no treasonous act. yet, you libs spew that i have.
you folks are sick with delusion. i suggest you keep drinking the cool aid.
hey dano and wayne, are investment banks and mainstreet banks still enter-twined?
Way to backtrack Frank! You step in it and now want to change the parameters of your point. Suzie has taught you well.
–
Henry, this blog has certainly hurled invective at “Bush and Cuccinelli and Palin and Bachman”, what none of us have done though is admit that we could have agreed with any legislation they presented if only their name was not on it…
“hey dano and wayne, if a republican gets elected president in 2016, are you libs, and organizations like the RTs, going to try and make that president a one-termer?”
—-
Isn’t that the goal of the opposing party every time the incumbent runs?
—
The real question is: would the liberals sell out their country and bet against our long term growth simply to put a republican president in office. You know, kind of like Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor were brazenly and shamelessly doing in the worst obstructionist congress of the past 50 years.
—-
Eric Cantor stood to make money if their was no debt ceiling deal reached in 2011:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/06/18/eric-cantors-investment/?mod=e2tw
Citizens can B and moan about their politicians all they want under the 1st amendment.
-
What is not right and IS “personal, racist, treasonous and a disaster for our country” are the actions of the GOTP the past 5 years since Obama was freely elected by a majority of the people and re-elected this past year.
-
The GOTP politicians have obstructed, refused to work, talk, legislate or otherwise carry on the peoples business simply because a Democrat named Obama is in the Presidents office. You know it and I know it and so does the average american.
Cold N P is right … I don’ t understand why so many would work to put Obama out of his job, when the economy is a mess, and so many others need a job,
ok, cold n p, looks like there’s no getting through THAT kind of comment. for your own sake,i think you would be better off sipping the kool aid, instead of guzzling it.
Is it true that for every 1 job created since President Obama took office 75
people went on food stamps?
well, sandi, the problem which brought on the market collapse was the deregulation of banks and investment companies. dodd-frank did diddly-squat to fix that. do you not know anything about the subject?
The Republicans haven’t been “disagreeing” with the president. They’ve been actively and consciously trying to sandbag any efforts to grow the economy and diminish unemployment. Deliberately, in an attempt to make Obama look bad. I guess they’ve decided to maintain this position in spite of the fact that it failed to get them in the White House last fall.
And yes, it’s treasonous, and Anti American. It also goes against whatever oaths they took for their positions.
Frank, you simply offer no rational, alternative truth to my comment.
-
Must mean I hit the crux of the issue square, or out of the park if you will.
-
In other words you know I’m right and you cannot argue the point because their is no argument so there you go with the silly insults again.
Frank, the reason Dodd-Frank did precious little to “fix” anything was more thanks to the GOTP than to lack of effort by Dodd-Frank, the Dems in general or the issue in question. I obviously know more than you do.
–
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/13/318017/after-helping-banks-water-down-dodd-frank-scott-brown-tries-to-claim-hes-a-wall-street-reformer/
–
http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/regulators-loosen-limits-on-risk-in-latest-drafts-of-dodd-frank-rules
BTW Frank, given your own lack of intelligent, cogent and credible “knowledge”, it is just plain laughable to question other people’s. Kinda like pammala complaining about grammar.
Wil R
-
I know where this figure comes from and it is crap.
-
The figure is based on net job growth of 174,000 since Obama took office and 14 million have been added to food stamps.
-
The figure does not take into account that over 11.1 million people have retired since 2009 so this needs to be added to the 174,000 figure so we get a real growth rate in the job market of 11.3 million instead of 174,000.
-
Also not included in the ridiculous conservative math is that over 21% of Social security beneficiaries COLLECT FOOD STAMPS, so subtract .21×11,100,000=2.33million that needs to come out of the 14 million.
-
A much more accurate picture of Americans in the work force who have been added to the food stamp rolls is 14mil-11.1mil-2.3mil=700,000.
-
So, compare for every net job 174,000 to the now corrected 700,000 added to the food stamp roles we come up with a realistic ratio of 1 job created for every 4 added to the food stamp roles. Still not a good figure, but not the out right lie that the GOTP continues to foster on low information voters.
-
Use goggle if you want to dispute my figures, I suggest you start with socialsecurity.gov.
Frank | February 25, 2013 at 2:07 pm
well, sandi, the problem which brought on the market collapse was the deregulation of banks and investment companies. dodd-frank did diddly-squat to fix that. do you not know anything about the subject?
So now we’ve gone from “I might have favored Dodd/Frank ” if it didn’t have their names on it to “Dodd/Frank did diddly squat” Good heyfrank. Way to answer the question. You showed your true colors,stepped out on the limb,
an d got it sawed off behind you, and went crashing down. Happy landing Frank. Want me to call 911 for you?
pammala | February 25, 2013 at 12:27 pm
because everything from obama is garbage
Thanks for emphasizing and proving my point pammala!
pammala my dear the depth of your shallowness is stunning…
heyfrank, I’m sure this has not been the first time that a group of politicians has huddled together to plot the downfall by obstruction of the sitting president. But it is as far as I know the first time a whole political party has publicly vowed to do so and then tried to follow through with their plan. The depths of this obstructionism is so pervasive that it has infected even you by your statement that you would support a bill if someone else sponsored it. Of course that is a bunch of BS as you and most other GOTP lemmings would try to obstruct a bill if it were the Warner-Giffords Bill because all you see is “Democrat-Democrat” and which means “Obama-Obama” and you’re back at obstruction. The time for that is during the election, now is the time for governance.
It’s a amazing how a supermajority passed obamacare, yet somehow it’s the Republicans’ fault it has been a disastrous failure (as predicted)
Would you like it any better Frank if it was the Fodd-Drank Bill? I mean that way your name wouldn’t be involved!
“So now we’ve gone from “I might have favored Dodd/Frank ” if it didn’t have their names on it to “Dodd/Frank did diddly squat”
That’s what heyfrank does.
@22 your post makes absolutely no sense what so ever to the subject at hand.
Ret. Judge Diane Strickland’s daughter shot to death in Baltimore. Just another senseless homicide by gun.
Yeah. The gun. Let’s put the gun on trial, convict it, and sentence it to life.
I hope you ask the shooter to turn in his or her gun.Very sad ending for her!
With this new blog format….Where’s the discussion from this morning?
“West Baltimore.” Oh dear. Thoughts and prayers to the Strickland family.
there you go, wayne, playing fence-post turtle again. you do that better, and for longer periods of time, than do others on this blog. I like watching!
hey cold, all you did was rant spewage in #8. done of what you said warrants a reasoned response.
I am curious, of which part of Obama are people racist? His black African father or white American mother?
Lord knows, in the liberal mind, no one can possibly disagree with his politics and policies and view those as a basis for opposing him. Perish the thought that race has nothing to do with one’s position.
“Because their only job was to make Obama a one-term President. It has been personal, racist, treasonous, and a disaster for our country.” One can read this screed as suggesting that the occupant of the White House has been the “racist, treasonous, and a disaster for our country”
Those of us, who took Rev. King’s advice to heart, have judged Obama by the content of his political character and find it lacking. It doesn’t make us racist, just the opposition.
@22 your post makes absolutely no sense what so ever to the subject at hand
Of course it does. The OP blames the Republicans for obama’s failures.
JackJ, I’m going to go out on a limb and say the African black half.
Jack J Maniscalco,
Keep in mind what inspired this Post of the Day: Frank’s statement that, “I might have been more favorable to the Dodd-Frank bill if it were anybody else but Dodd, and Frank.”
In other words, his principal objection was not the policies in the bill, but the people whose names are on it. It’s an ad hominem attack, but applied abstractly to legislation, and it’s just as fallacious (if not more so) than attacking a person. It’s also 100 percent ridiculous. Frank dislikes President Obama intensely. Yet he would conceivably (based on the statement) been against articles of impeachment if Rep. Barney Frank introduced them. That makes no sense.
Wayne’s point that conservatives have opposed EVERYTHING Obama has proposed, even a conservative health-care reform plan that came to bear his name because his political enemies tagged it “Obamacare,” is a good one.
So heyfrank has now posted six times (16;67%) of the posts) as of 8:16 PM
and still hasn’t mafde a single attempt to answer the simple question I asked him.Obfuscate and obstruct Frank. You’ve learned your lesson well from your Republicon masters.
Boehner knows that without the chucklehead faction he doesn’t have the votes to stop the Republican’s latest manufactured debt crisis. Rest assured there will be no cuts to defense. Just as with the last “fiscal cliff” he will break the Hastert rule and wait for the Democratic Senate to send him a revenue-enhanced bill that will pass the House with both Democratic and “moderate” Republican support. He will then claim “victory” and vow to stick it to the president “the next time.” To continue stifling the recovery by any means necessary for political gain is treason, Boehner and the GOP will pay dearly in 2014.
cry like a baby, blame the libs for all the problems that the bull headed Republicans refuse to help on. All in all, we won the last two elections
@34 No it doesn’t. It says that Frank wouldn’t vote for a bill with a Democrats name on it.
-
The thread takes the tone that the GOTP in general wouldn’t vote for any Democratic legislation even if that legislation began as a Republican Idea.
-
You are simply twisting facts as usual Suzie. You are irrelevant. Get used to it.
” Yet he would conceivably (based on the statement) been against articles of impeachment if Rep. Barney Frank introduced them. ”
Speaking of ad hominem.
“…if a republican gets elected president in 2016…”
-
2020 at the earliest, and only if they purge some major disease from within the party or a real superstar emerges. More likely, the GOP will be out of the highest office until at least 2024.
-
If anyone thinks that Frank is bad now, just wait until he’s faced with the prospect of eight long years of…
…
…
wait for it…
…
…
Hillary Rodham Clinton, 45th President of the United States of America.
Whatcha gonna do, Frankie-poo, when the HRC runs wild on you?
-
I’m just kidding, man… Everyone knows that the next non-Democrat president will be a Whig.
Allow me to give the liberals someone else to shoot at. Here is why I opposed Obamacare. It was a stupid, ill-conceived, half-baked idea that will cost a fortune because to many naive assumptions were made about how it would be funded. Here is the problem that apparently no liberals but most every conservative who protested against it saw coming. Instead of providing healthcare to employees in accordance with the law, many businesses are choosing to pay the fine because the cost of the fine is cheaper than is the cost of insurance. They are also cutting there low-wage employees’ hours back to 30 or less so they no longer count as full-time employees and thus, are not mandated to receive employer-provided healthcare coverage. Now here comes the irony. Those same low wage employees who already didn’t have healthcare because their employer didn’t provide it and they couldn’t afford to buy themselves will still be required by the law to either buy insurance privately or pay a fine for not having it, only now they will have less money with which to do this because their work hours have now been cut. The answer from the grand plan. They can obtain coverage from the as yet none existent government run exchanges at a low subsidized price. What’s the problem with this you ask? Well, even if the rate is subsidized, they are still having to buy insurance with less money than they had before Obamacare. On top of that, someone has to pay the subsidy right? So there will be an inevitable series of tax increases to pay for this because the plan claimed it would fund itself, but did so with the smoke and mirrors of projected future savings that even the non-partisan CBO says are never likely to materialize. Yeah, it’s a great plan. Only a racist obstructionist could possibly take issue with that.
“Here is why I opposed Obamacare. It was a stupid, ill-conceived, half-baked idea that will cost a fortune because to many naive assumptions were made about how it would be funded. Here is the problem that apparently no liberals but most every conservative who protested against it saw coming. Instead of providing healthcare to employees in accordance with the law, many businesses are choosing to pay the fine because the cost of the fine is cheaper than is the cost of insurance.”
–Chuck
I’ve heard this over and over. Chuck, can you answer this question:
If company A provides health insurance now, and coldly rational bean counters in management decide to drop that and pay the fine once the ACA kicks in, then WHY ARE THEY PAYING FOR THE INSURANCE NOW? There’s no law that says they have to. And they could have saved EVEN MORE MONEY by dropping health insurance for employees long ago.
I’ve never gotten even half-decent answer to that one. I’m hoping that finally, someone can provide one. And here are some more.
Will they drop it purely out of hatred of the law, and the requirement?
Are they dropping it because they believe that will help them better compete for skilled workers with other companies?
Why, egads, did they ever start offering health insurance in the first place?
Thanks in advance for your answers, Chuck.
I will tell you what is wrong with obamacare. Me, a young, healthy, male that is just starting out earning his nest egg is forced to get insurance to cover the old people who already had a chance to earn their nest egg. There was never a real coverage problem, there was a cost problem. The only way obamacare addresses costs is to make young people pay for it. The same people that have not had a chance to earn their nest egg.
In response to companies dropping coverage, yes Dan companies will now weigh the costs savings on dropping insurance versus the cost of having less qualified employees. Not sure what will happen, time will tell but based on the company owners I’ve talked to, insurance is one of the top costs and cutting it is looking better everyday.
“1I will tell you what is wrong with obamacare. Me, a young, healthy, male that is just starting out earning his nest egg is forced to get insurance to cover the old people who already had a chance to earn their nest egg. There was never a real coverage problem, there was a cost problem. The only way obamacare addresses costs is to make young people pay for it. The same people that have not had a chance to earn their nest egg.
2. In response to companies dropping coverage, yes Dan companies will now weigh the costs savings on dropping insurance versus the cost of having less qualified employees. Not sure what will happen, time will tell but based on the company owners I’ve talked to, insurance is one of the top costs and cutting it is looking better everyday.”
–The artist formally known as ARyan
A.Ryan,
1. I’ll tell you what’s wrong with the current system: some young and healthy irresponsible people starting out shirk health insurance so they could afford their bar tabs and the new cars (or houses) they went into too much debt to buy. So, when/if they crashed those cars and ended up in a trauma center, or they came down with lymphoma, or some other dreaded disease or injury, and couldn’t afford to pay those bills, the cost got built into the hospital’s overheard, raising the rates that that all the responsible paying customers have to pay. And that was built into OUR insurance rates. By “responsible paying customers” I mean the insured. Sorry, pal, but your free ride is over. I have a hard time empathizing with you. I and other insured people have been subsidizing your free care. Cry me a river.
2. If a company is paying a $12,000 (tax deductible) subsidy for its employees insurance now, they will be able to trade that for $800 (or whatever) the first year the ACA penalty kicks in. But if they cut that coverage NOW, they would save not only the $12k (minus the tax deduction) but THEY WOULD ALSO SAVE THE $800. In other words, the potential savings are greater, NOW, when there is no requirement OR penalty. But they have not cancelled that coverage. Why?
Artist, bet you hate paying that car insurance too. Or did you opt to pay the penalty?
-
Remember, you may not realize this now, but you too will one day be old. If you are lucky.
Cold,
It’s not merely a matter of someone being old. All insurance is a hedge; it’s a bet you hope you never have to collect on. The problem is, the way the health insurance system is structured, insured people are bailing out the ones who decline to hedge.
Here’s the homeowner’s insurance equivalent: A.Ryan is saying, “to heck with homeowners insurance! If my house burns down, it will be rebuilt by all my silly neighbors who purchased the insurance!”
That would never happen the ways the laws are set up with homeowners insurance. But there’s a law that says hospitals must treat a patient regardless of ability to pay. In a system like that, shirking is an offense against everyone who does have insurance.
The artist formally known as ARyan
Young healthy people like you, think they will always be healthy. As Dan said,things happen. Accidents can change your life in a moment. Cancer hits the young too, not just the middle aged or elderly. I hope nothing bad healthwise, happens to you, but to not have insurance coverage because you don’t think anything will ever happen is irresponsible.
Dan Casey | February 26, 2013 at 1:04 am
Cold,
It’s not merely a matter of someone being old. All insurance is a hedge; it’s a bet you hope you never have to collect on. The problem is, the way the health insurance system is structured, insured people are bailing out the ones who decline to hedge.
Dan,
Not so fast. . .health insurance companies and health care providers are distinct, independent entities. The providers must provide care for which
they may not be paid thereby increasing the cost of providing healthcare.
On the other hand aggressive collection systems, supported by law, are in place and utilized. Thus, if you don’t pay and can. . .your credit gets ruined wwhich can be disasterous to a younger person. Obtaining insurance is basically personal risk management and, accordingly, should be a personal
choice decision. As for those that cannot afford to pay. . .they do get care
which is approriate. IMO the impact of this on healthcare costs is not overly
burdensome in and of itself. The cost escalations affecting healthcare are
impacted from unrestricted litigation more so than from those unable to pay.
Injecting the government into this mess is like pouring gasoline onto a fire to
put it out. In essence, we give people with zero experience providing health care and zero experience in risk management control over both providers and
insurers. Obamacare accomplishes nothing positive and adversly increases
the cost of healthcare and will ultimately give Government control over a vital
aspect of all citizens lives. . .their access to healthcare. It is a bad law and
should be repealed. What has government, particularly this administration,
done to earn such trust? Oh, that’s right. . .they lie to us blatantly, frequently and unexplainably.
Do you read the papers around here much, Aryan? It’s your population that’s constantly being airlifted to RMH after racking up a car or falling off a mountain. Thinking you’re impervious to the illness and injury everyone else is subject to is a big reason for that. I have two young and healthy males on my car insurance and there’s a reason they’re a fortune to insure behind the wheel. You’re the demographic Most Likely To End Up Road Pizza. Buy your insurance and stop whining. Be grateful you’ll have it.
Artist formerly…does have a point, though. Health care costs are through the roof, and it is next to impossible to compare quality or costs beforehand. Recently, the RT ran an article about just how hard it can be to find out what health care procedures cost. When they did get a price (for joint replacement I believe) there was a 10:1 spread. Imagine buying a car this way. You won’t know what it costs until it is delivered. Could be from $10,000 up to $100,000. And it might be a Lexus or a Yugo. Would anyone take THAT deal?
obamacare is coming….hope all that voted for the fools that rammed it down our throats will be happy.
As someone who grew up lower middle class, I cannot fathom the idiocy of choosing to not be medically insured. If nothing else but what might happen to you that you have no control over (a car accident, cancer, and 8 million other things you cant predict or control).
Are people really so stupid to not care about their health care so much that they don’t want to pay for insurance? Do these people know that they are one car accident away from bankruptcy?
Leon,
Your depiction of the absurdity that is obamacare is the best I’ve seen yet. And, time after time obama reminds us that he is a bald-faced liar.
It is simply not true in any real sense that “health insurance companies and health care providers are distinct, independent entities” in the big picture. The “system” by which health care is delivered in this nation is the insurance model. The entities are symbiotic. It is a rare patient that pays cash and has no insurance, and this is true for every doctor’s office in this country, hell many refuse to see/treat people without insurance. That is why the ER is such a critical care mess.
–
Yes, The ER “must provide care for which they may not be paid thereby increasing the cost of providing healthcare” on everyone. But not having insurance means you pay more (if you can). Even on items insurance does not “cover”, you will still pay the discounted “insurance rate” that the provider has worked out with the insurance carrier. Check ups and some preventive testing is also included in your cost of premiums so you are healthier or at least better aware of your own health at no additional cost.
–
It is irresponsible to your own financial future not to carry health insurance. One accident or serious illness can ruin your “nest” before it can become feathered. It is just plain bad “personal risk management” and a bad personal choice not to carry health insurance.
–
Even a moment taken to do the math will assure anyone not predisposed to believe the right wing meme, that by far the larger cost is treating millions of uninsured and unable to pay patients than the few cases that go to litigation, regardless of the “award” involved.
–
The government that some people love to hate (when the opposing party is in “power”), runs the military and their health care, the retirement system and their health care, the disabled and their health care and also health care for the indigent and compared to the private care system, they do it well and cheaper. They do not “control” providers, they manage the payment to the providers.
–
The ACA gives new controls on insurance carriers and increases the rolls of the insured. It is a good idea whose time has come.
–
Anyone who thinks that we should trust private business over the government has just not been at this long.
Thanks Cold n P. So after jumping through all the mathmatical hoops and loops at least 4 times as many people have been added to the food stamp program as jobs that have been created to help pay for it. Correct?
“Leon,
Your depiction of the absurdity that is obamacare is the best I’ve seen yet. And, time after time obama reminds us that he is a bald-faced liar.”
–Frank
That’s an opinion, Frank. And you’re also of the opinion that a majority of the GOP in Congress favored raising the cap (or lifting it) on income subject to FICA taxes, right? (Except that they never raised a peep about it).
The Artist Formerly Known as Applewood: obamacare is coming….hope all that voted for the fools that rammed it down our throats will be happy.
-
I’m looking forward to the ACA rollouts. I have preexisting medical conditions and I want to be able to change jobs and get similar coverage or take on private insurance without automatic denial.
-
I also find it odd that no one raises a similar squawk over other types of insurance like car and homeowner’s/renter’s. I’ve never had a car accident or a break-in, yet I have both types of insurance just in case. (And it’s required in VA to have car insurance or you pay a ridiculous “uninsured” fee.) Maybe it’s because in both cases there’s a clear cut “that guy did it to me” aspect that isn’t present with medical conditions.
Yeah I read the paper quite often @ Kristen. The reason you hear about the young dying is because it is tragic and newsworthy. You don’t hear about the guy who died of a hard attack except in the obituaries. No I don’t mind buying car insurance, I chose to drive and own a car, therefore I accept the requirement to buy insurance by the state to use their roads. I didn’t chose to live. I recently bought health insurance actually because I don’t want to leave my parents with the costs of my mistakes or misfortunes but I should be able to judge the my risk of being uninsured versus the cost of insurance. My main point is that obamacare shifts the cost of insurance to the younger generation that isn’t responsible for its great cost and does not have as many resources to pay for it. It is kind of like the way higher income taxes shift money away from the people trying to earn money instead of raising capital gains taxes on the people (Warren Buffet) who already have it.
Dan, Getting to your/my second point, I think you want me to say that companies aren’t dropping insurance because they are afraid of losing their employees or a public backlash. I think your point is that they have been paying insurance this long that they will go on paying it because workers expect it. I can tell you what is going to happen though; a big company is going to drop insurance as costs savings because they can, then small business is going to keep having insurance because they have to in order keep their employees, then the bigger company is going to buy out the smaller one because they undercut their prices by saving on insurance. Noww you might say that would happen even without insurance factor, but wait and see.
“I think your point is that they have been paying insurance this long that they will go on paying it because workers expect it. I can tell you what is going to happen though; a big company is going to drop insurance as costs savings because they can, then small business is going to keep having insurance because they have to in order keep their employees, then the bigger company is going to buy out the smaller one because they undercut their prices by saving on insurance. Noww you might say that would happen even without insurance factor, but wait and see.”
–A.Ryan
Big companies have been buying smaller companies for a long time. You’re suggesting that big companies are going to simply drop their insurance to save money (then gobble up even more smaller companies, and turn them into no-healthcare entities). If that is true, then they would be doing it now, when they can save even more without the ACA penalty. Further, it means the ACA is merely a coincidence, not the cause of the problem you’re positing.
Nobody’s suddenly gonna jump for the “privilege” of paying a penalty as a result of offering no insurance who hasn’t already jumped for for the same thing when there’s no penalty. That makes no economic sense.
But thank you for at least attempting to answer this question. Chuck, who first raised the issue in this thread, hasn’t even bothered.
Dan, you can connect the dots for them all day long, you cannot make them see the picture though.
The artist formally known as ARyan – it was smart to have purchased some sort of insurance if you believe the statistics below:
Accidental death is the leading cause of death in males 1 to 44 years of age. Motor vehicle crashes, drowning, gunshot wounds, and occupational fatalities are among the leading injuries that contribute to the unanticipated death of the young adult male.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-7599.2001.tb00004.x/abstract
—-
If you ski, bike, jog, play sports etc,, or, you’re just a “klutz”, you never know when you might be injured. Even the cost of a broken leg – ER trip – will set you back financially thousands of dollars. Pretty foolish to have no insurance.
#63 And if you hang out around people with guns a lot, you DEFINITELY want some insurance.
“Dan, you can connect the dots for them all day long, you cannot make them see the picture though.”
–Sandi
Shall we try again, a little more explicitly?
Company A offers health insurance, and it has for years. It can end that benefit at any time and save thousands of dollars per worker, and ending that insurance currently costs them nothing. There was and is no penalty right now.
But the anti-ACA folks are positing that once there is a penalty (next year) that companies are suddenly going to be lining up to end their insurance benefit and pay the penalty. Can someone cogently explain why this might true? If they can cut the benefit now, at NO cost, why would keep instead it and wait until they they have to pay a penalty to end it, at a cost of $800 (or whatever) per worker? It makes no sense
Sandi Saunders | February 26, 2013 at 9:45 am It is simply not true in any real sense that “health insurance companies and health care providers are distinct, independent entities” in the big picture. The “system” by which health care is delivered in this nation is the insurance model. The entities are symbiotic. It is a rare patient that pays cash and has no insurance, and this is true for every doctor’s office in this country, hell many refuse to see/treat people without insurance. That is why the ER is such a critical care mess.
It is simply not true that you are right in your comments above. Do you also
believe the railroad runs coalmines? Do the airlines own Disney World and
all other tourist destinations?
Doctor’s, Nurses, Hospitals and Clinics provide health care. Insurance companies provide insurance. On your next visit to the ER (perhaps a brain fade attack) try to buy a health insurance policy while you are waiting.
Ok I’m tired of writing “The artist formally known as ARyan” I hope you believe I’m not.
Hey I try. I reread your question/post earlier and what you are asking is why companies haven’t dropped insurance already. Why is there going to be a mad rush to drop it when the ACA penalty kicks in? I believe that is your question. I don’t think there will be a mad rush to drop it. I think companies will drop it as costs rise ever higher and the advantages of having employer provided insurance (better employees) dissappear. It is still an advantage to have insurance for a company and it will be after the ACA penalty kicks in. But healthcare cost will continue to rise because the ACA does very little to address this and eventually companies will drop it. Then we will be stuck with an overpriced bureaucratic nightmare that is government run because it is the only thing left.
Dan, thanks for discussing
@Pirengle “I also find it odd that no one raises a similar squawk over other types of insurance like car and homeowner’s/renter’s.”
Without taking sides, here’s the reason for the squawk over mandatory health insurance.
With car insurance, for example, the only REQUIRED insurance is liability. That is in case you cause damage to someone else, it is for the other driver’s protection against your negligence. You can also choose to cover yourself and your own vehicle, but you are free to choose not to do so. Homeowner’s insurance is only a requirement if you have a mortgage, and it is, again, not to protect you (even though it does), but to protect the interest of the mortgage lender in your property. It also means that if someone else is negligently injured on your property, they can successfully sue you and actually get paid, whether you personally have the money or not.
With the health insurance requirement, you are required to obtain coverage that protects you, personally, not necessarily anyone else. Many people feel that whether or not to purchase insurance of any kind to cover your own personal expenses should be a choice, not a mandate. The other examples are different because they are protecting others from your negligence, you are not required to protect yourself…protecting yourself from yourself is an option.
@Dan “Nobody’s suddenly gonna jump for the “privilege” of paying a penalty as a result of offering no insurance who hasn’t already jumped for for the same thing when there’s no penalty. That makes no economic sense.”
If you buy into the argument that insurance companies are going to jack their rates sky high because of the new law, then in that context it would make sense. (ginormous emphasis on IF)
A.Ryan, you’re saying that the decision to drop health coverage is unaffected by the ACA penalty, but is affected by other factors, such as the rising cost of providing health insurance (which btw was rising at a higher rate before ACA was enacted).
Thus, those decisions and the advent of ACA are a coincidence — there is no cause and effect. I agree with you.
#64..You mean like the `good folks` of Chicago ? 500 dead in last 6 months..More school age kids shot and killed than recent CT massacre…And Chicago has one of the strictest gun laws in the U.S.> President ..Obama..Senator… D Durbin.. House Rep Jackson(going to prison) Gov..Pat Quin(last Gov G Ryan in prison)House leader Mike Madigan State Atty Gen Lisa Madigan(daughter of Mike)…Mayor Rahm Emanuel….all blamable for the WAR ZONE in Chicago..Of course, they are blaming each other…why ? Can`t blame repubs..Not any ! Chicago school system ..rated one of the worst in Country…can`t blame repubs…Not any ! State Pension $78 billion in debt….repubs ? Not any. This is the political culture Obama came from, and he is going to `FIX` Washington ??????? Chicago will be totally broke before long…can`t blame repubs….Not any there. Didn`t the Pres say we needed to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan because the cost of American lives was too high ? He needs to take a look in his own back yard, yet they get the cold shoulder from him..He`s used them for his second term….just like he`s used the rest of you leftists…Now, you are expendable…Bye. Bye…He can`t use you anymore.
#64….I`ve been `hanging around ` gun owners all of my life…Never bought the 1st Insurance to cover it either. Guess I didn`t need the Insurance…I`m sitting here typing this.What a brutally ignorant statement.
Oh…an amendment to Post #70…..(But I`m sure he will).
Leon, nothing I said or implied should lead anyone to believe that health insurance companies “run” or “own” health care providers, but it is asinine to claim or pretend that they are “distinct, independent entities” instead of the reality of their symbiosis. Denial is more than a river for you, I get that, but just because you cannot buy insurance in the ER or get a mole removed at Anthem, does not mean they are not inextricably tied in the system of health care delivery.
Chuck- what you fail to consideer is the fact that all large companies could no longer afford to cover employees health care and were eliminating plans as quickly as possible. Employee plans were going the way of defined benefit pension plans. The emplooyers were pushing people to part-time and using leased employees as much as possible to limit providing employee benefits. They were simply too costly. ACA makes provisions for the employees that were being kicked out of their insurance plan before and after ACA. You want to argue that there was no problem with healthcare before ACA. That simply is not true. The Healthcare industry has been bankrupting individuals, businesses, and the government for a decade. ACA is an attempt to stop this and appears to be working. Does it require people and businesses to change, you bet. Does it require freeloaders to get insurance, indeed. Health insurance for small businesses and individuals working either part-time or for small business will have the options of buying their own guaranteed issue insurance at subsidized rates and a federal tax credit of 50% ofthe cost. Large businesses will continue to cover their full time employees as a benefit. Hospitals can no longer claim thatt rates increase because they are serving the uninsured.
Thank you for admitting that it is a “big IF” VTHokie. The truth is that we do not know. For all of their existence, insurance companies have claimed that the “bigger the pool” the lower the cost for those in it. That is most certainly true of big companies. I am experiencing that personally.
–
If it turns out that the bigger pool, the discounts worked out with providers and the poor having health care not ER care, does not bring costs down, the next logical step is to remove insurance companies from the picture. They have EVERY incentive to make this work for us all and none not to IMO. Since health care providers get and will get higher reimbursements and better deals with insurance companies than the government, they too have EVERY incentive to make this work and none not to.
–
But only time will tell.
A. Ryan: I think companies will drop [insurance] as costs rise ever higher and the advantages of having employer provided insurance (better employees) dissappear.
-
I don’t think health insurance through an employer guarantees better employees. I think it guarantees a underclass of “company men” willing to be pooped on by their employers for the sake of having insurance for their families.
-
It used to be that public sector and some blue chip companies were understood to pay less but made up for it in benefits. Now those benefits are slowly going bye-bye as government and corporate officials dip into the pension and insurance funds to pay off immediate problems, promising to “pay it all back later and then some.” Later is here, so where’s the funds and then some? Poor planning plus the “do more with less” attitude made job security obsolete. Time to join the rest of the first-world countries and socialize our medicine.
*****
VT Hokie: With car insurance, for example, the only REQUIRED insurance is liability. -snip- With the health insurance requirement, you are required to obtain coverage that protects you, personally, not necessarily anyone else.
-
I see health insurance as a strange sort of liability: you’re paying for self coverage so you won’t get others sick (in the case of communicable diseases) or be a burden on others from your unexpected illness or accident.
From Leon @11:26
It is simply not true that you are right in your comments above. Do you also
believe the railroad runs coalmines? Do the airlines own Disney World and
all other tourist destinations?
Doctor’s, Nurses, Hospitals and Clinics provide health care. Insurance companies provide insurance. On your next visit to the ER (perhaps a brain fade attack) try to buy a health insurance policy while you are waiting.
You’re right Leon of course. For example just look at Roanoke’s Carilion Health Systems. Hospitals and Clinics provide healthcare. They have no relatioinship to insurance providers. Well, hardly ever anyway. And if you look at the conglomerates that own Lewis Gale, and just about every other sizable hospital or clinic system in the U.S., you will find the same thing is true. Just check the link below.
http://newshub.aetna.com/press-release/products-and-services/aetna-whole-health-and-carilion-clinic-products-debut-roanoke-ar
I
Why do you folks think Dan start this thread with “heyfrank” as the first item emitted from Wayne’s fingertips?
“I’ve heard this over and over. Chuck, can you answer this question:
If company A provides health insurance now, and coldly rational bean counters in management decide to drop that and pay the fine once the ACA kicks in, then WHY ARE THEY PAYING FOR THE INSURANCE NOW?”
Dan, if you’ll pay attention you’ll note that I didn’t say the companies that are already providing insurance will stop. I don’t think they will. I’m talking about the ones who currently don’t provide insurance but would be required to do so under the new law. They are looking at a new expense. In effort to minimize this, many are considering simply paying the fine because (and these are estimates) the fine is about two grand per employee annually where the average cost to provide insurance is about $4400 per employee. Others, who again, are not already providing insurance, in an effort to avoid being required to start doing so, are cutting employee hours back so they will no longer be considered full-time thus obviating the requirement for the employer to offer health insurance. The employee, however, will still be required to buy insurance, but now they have to do it with less income per week. So in answer to your question, which by the way was completely off point, I don’t think employers who already provided insurance will suddenly stop. I suppose some might out of pure avarice, but it isn’t likely. However, the ones who don’t provide it now are looking for ways to avoid having to start, which may mean cutting employee hours. So the conundrum created by the individual mandate remains.
http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=3b06f01e-02c5-4fe1-a779-e4bd447765aa+
Now that I answered your question, maybe you could address the issue I raised. Isn’t the law of unintended, though not unforeseen, consequences at work here. Employees who already couldn’t afford health insurance are now going to be required to buy insurance or be penalized and to do so with even less income than they had before. And yes, I agree that it is responsible to be insured. The problem is, this law is going to penalize the people who acted responsibly by requiring them to foot the bill for tax increases and higher premiums to cover the costs for the people who don’t or can’t afford to buy insurance.
And as you noted about my point, I’ve heard the canned answer to the issue I raised over and over as well. “Obamacare isn’t perfect, but it was better than nothing”. That appears to be debatable and the questions remain, who will pay for it, how will they do it and why is it fair to make the people who have behaved responsibly and bought insurance in the past now pay even more to cover everyone else?
Hey folks,
Regarding the impending sequester mentioned at the top of the thread…., rather than negotiate with Congress, obama felt his time was better spent today in Newport News, VA, The president said, “this work, along with hundreds of thousands of jobs, are currently in jeopardy. These cuts are wrong. They’re not smart. They are not fair. They are a self-inflicted wound that doesn’t have to happen.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/us/politics/obama-takes-budget-warnings-to-shipbuilder.html?nl=us&emc=edit_cn_20130226&_r=0
And, last week at a rally with first responders, obama decried, “this meat-clever approach will jeopardize our military readiness and eviscerate job-creating investments in education and energy and medical research.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-make-obama-decide-which-sequester-cuts/2013/02/25/26169d22-7ee2-11e2-a350-49866afab584_story.html
And yet in November, 2011, obama declared, “Already some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: NO! I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending.”
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-vowed-to-use-veto-to-keep-sequester
The repubs gave obama his tax cuts eight weeks ago.
’nuff said. The above links prove obama is a hypocrite. Others might call him a liar. I think he’s a hypocrite. Does anybody have a different opinion?
Sunsetting TEMPORARY tax cuts are not an increase in revenue or moving towards any kind of compromise. Frank is just wrong on the facts.
-
Boehner said today the house passed 2 bills last year to deal with the budget and it was time for the “Senate to get off it’s ass and do something”
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57571323/on-sequester-boehner-tells-senate-to-get-off-their-ass/
-
Allow me to translate for you: Boehner is living in an alternative universe, doesn’t know what his job is. If he does his job and brings a budget compromise to the House floor for a vote that just might pass, the GOTP will have his balls in a vise and Boehner will no longer be Speaker of the House, he will just be another GOTP squeaker.
-
Boehner doesn’t even understand that bills passed by the house and not the Senate or signed by the President carry no weight in this NEW 113th Congress.
-
Boehner is still living in the do nothing 112th Congress. How quaint.
-
Here’s another out of touch GOTP loser.
-
Bob McDonnell said “does not support raising taxes to help the federal government pay its bills.” However when talking about cutting the military Bob said “…yeah you gotta cut, but don’t put the burden on men and women in uniform..”
-
http://www.wtop.com/120/3233343/Ask-The-Governor-Vas-Bob-McDonnell
-
Allow me to translate for Governor Bob: NIMBY His position is GOTP ridiculous, balance the budget on the poor and middle class and keep the war machine rolling right along. Who’s getting rich? War profiteers. Who does Bob want to suffer? Grandma. Bob killed the gas tax but will always be remember has governor vaginal probe.
These are just 2 examples of GOTP’ers so out of touch with reality it is sad and pathetic to watch and listen to these children. We need leaders, not cry babies.
#72 Sorry, Awood, but stats are clear. You keep guns in your home or hang out around guns, you are more likely to be hurt by them than folks who don’t have guns around.
-
So are you saying you have neither health or homeowner’s insurance? No liability insurance? You ought to consider it.
#81 Sorry, Frank, as usual your post proves nothing at all.
Hey folks, maybe this link will fall within Dan’s thread poster heading of “personal, racist, treasonous”. The link depicts two libs objecting to the presence of the …national debt clock… in their finance committee hearing room during a hearing. I guess they don’t want to be reminded of the …facts… as they deliberate on how to spend even more money.
Is my anger at their antics…personal? …racist? …treasonous? Dan says it is, what say you folks?
oops. here’s the link:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/26/democrats-complain-about-presence-of-debt-clock-on-capitol-hill/#ixzz2M3fq0vz3
Frank, I’m not sure what’s with the orgy of ellipses in your posts these days, but they’re making it even less likely that people would want to read all the way through. Are you sure you’re not pammala?
One way for any discussion to quickly devolve is for some posters to accuse others of sockpuppetry. That has happened here, on occasion. But its far from the norm and the regulars from either side aren’t engaging in it as best I can tell.
There are many ways for “any discussion to quickly devolve” and among the right wing favorites is to offer a misused fact delivered with a side of insult and then we either respond and appear to respect their behavior or leave their bile unchallenged. Win/Win, for them.
–
I think that calling that kind of activity “sock puppet” is not far off the mark at all Dan. Someone hiding in anonymity has “a false online identity” and certainly the way that most right wingers post, it is “used for deceptive purposes“.
–
When you come for discussion, normal people do not bring snide insults and false memes. Certainly none deserving of respect. Let’s be honest, almost none of the right wingers come here for “discussion”.
hey gdad,
The information I provided in post #81 proves obama is either a liar, or a hypocrite. I think he’s a hypocrite. What do you think a person is when he promises to do one specific thing in order to corral votes from low-information voters, and then does the exact opposite, knowing that his low-information voters are too dumb to notice?
hey Sandi and Dan,
Are republicans who are in favor the sequester (proposed by the white house)… “for” it due to personal reasons? …racist reasons? …treasonous reasons? Why did obama abandon HIS idea, which happens to be one of the FEW measures for which he ultimately received large support from both republicans and democrats alike?
Please look at the information I provided in post #81 concerning the sequester. Do you have any thoughts to share concerning the 180 degree turn made by the whitehouse recently regarding the sequester program it first offered as a solution to one of the various and sundry “budget-debt ceiling” crisises we seem to frequently have? Yeah, I know, the sequester DID receive republican support….and they are still largely supportive of what was once a collective program proposed by obama and supported by democrats and republicans alike. BUT,
…why did obama propose the sequester in the first place?
…why did he enlist the support of republicans for the idea?
…why did he say he’d veto any changes to the sequester?
…why did he flip-flop his support from “for” the sequester, to “against”?
…and why now does he say that it’s going to be the ruin of us all…or at least the little kiddies?
dan, my comment at 91 got wiped out, except for the salutation. any reason you can think of that would cause that to happen?
ok, there it is. thanks. the “add a comment” box appears to have shifted and now covers a portion of the last post. i’ve not seen that happen before? is it something i may have caused?
Chuck, you seem to think that an emplooyer with more than 50 employees has to pay the employees’ induurance costs. That is not true, they have to offer inusrance that meets minimim coverage at a reasonable price to the employee and their dependents(does not include spouse). The employee has to pay for the insurance.
Umm, Dan, I was kidding with Frank. It’s quite obvious they’re not the same person.
Sandi Saunders | February 26, 2013 at 12:41 pm Leon, nothing I said or implied should lead anyone to believe that health insurance companies “run” or “own” health care providers, but it is asinine to claim or pretend that they are “distinct, independent entities” instead of the reality of their symbiosis. Denial is more than a river for you, I get that, but just because you cannot buy insurance in the ER or get a mole removed at Anthem, does not mean they are not inextricably tied in the system of health care delivery
Nice two-step backtrack Sandi!
Beason@75
You fail to consider that employer’s, particularly private employers, are in business to make money. ACA steps the stage for companies to drop the
healthcare benefit and still stay competitive in the workplace. Since the penalty “hit” is less than the cost of the insurance to the employer dropping
it boosts the bottom line. ACA provides the option and, since it is increasing the costs of insurance, provides even more incentive for employer’s to pass this pig to the government.
In summary, your assumption is flawed as it does not consider the business aspect of the issue.
Richard is right and for most employers there is no need to panic. The penalty can be avoided even if you have over 50 employees as long as you are offering coverage that meets some minimum criteria at a cost your employee is determined to be able to pay. I believe that is 9.5% of their W-2 earnings.
–
The point of the ACA is get more people covered under insurance, not to rob people or business. Using this as a partisan cudgel is so contemptible.
Dan Casey | February 26, 2013 at 11:11 am “Dan, you can connect the dots for them all day long, you cannot make them see the picture though.”
–Sandi
Shall we try again, a little more explicitly?
Company A offers health insurance, and it has for years. It can end that benefit at any time and save thousands of dollars per worker, and ending that insurance currently costs them nothing. There was and is no penalty right now.
But the anti-ACA folks are positing that once there is a penalty (next year) that companies are suddenly going to be lining up to end their insurance benefit and pay the penalty. Can someone cogently explain why this might true? If they can cut the benefit now, at NO cost, why would keep instead it and wait until they they have to pay a penalty to end it, at a cost of $800 (or whatever) per worker? It makes no sense
Dan and Sandi,
The fallacy of your argument is that, like Beason, you fail to grasp the business aspect of the matter. Companies offer healthcare insurance as
a benefit in order to compete in the workforce market for employees. ACA
presents a new opportunity as it provides the option for a business to drop such coverage which is both expensive and an uncontrollable expense item.
Some companies will drop the benefit, more will follow them, and more will
follow them. The business benefits as the penalty assessed is less expensive than the cost of the insurance and, as more and more companies
shed the benefit it will become a non-factor in the workforce marketplace.
Add to all this the additional unemployment ACA will create for both insurers
and providers which, from an employer standpoint, dictates a further reduction in workforce competition. The losers under ACA are all of us individuals who, in the end, get government healthcare and death panels.
“Beason@75
You fail to consider that employer’s, particularly private employers, are in business to make money. ACA steps the stage for companies to drop the
healthcare benefit and still stay competitive in the workplace. Since the penalty “hit” is less than the cost of the insurance to the employer dropping
it boosts the bottom line. ACA provides the option and, since it is increasing the costs of insurance, provides even more incentive for employer’s to pass this pig to the government.
In summary, your assumption is flawed as it does not consider the business aspect of the issue.”
–Leon
Leon: you fail to consider that Richard Beason is a CPA and he knows better than most people that businesses are in business to make money.
Richard: by bothering to answer Leon, you fail to consider that he believes the president is NOT a natural-born citizen and that he supports that wacky notion with a 138-year-old Supreme Court ruling that A) was nullified by the 19th amendment and B) in no place opines that a person born in the U.S. who has a parent from another country is NOT a natural-born citizen.
Frank, your link and your misrepresentation of what Obama said and the context he said it in does not prove Obama is the “liar, or a hypocrite”.
–
He said he wanted a balanced plan and there has yet to be one.
Dan@100
My comments stand. I am as certified as Beason and have more private industry and public accounting experience.
Sandi,
Well, thank you for at least checking, but didn’t obama get his tax increases about eight weeks ago? If you viewed the third link, you would have seen obama say that he would “veto any attempt to change the sequester.” Now, it’s HE who wants to change the sequester. Are you seriously maintaining that obama is not a hypocrite, or was not lying in late 2011?
And, by the way, there were three links, and they all dealt with obama proposing the sequester, obama saying he’d veto any changes to the sequester, and now, obama wanting nothing to do with the sequester. Why isn’t he staying in Washington and supporting the sequester his white house thought up and he approved…which were then approved by both the senate and the house?
Think of it. This is one of the very few times that the republicans have embraced and supported one of obama’s ideas, and combined with obama and the lib-senate…actually got something passed. Now, obama flip-flops on the whole deal.
Why has he moved the goal posts?
Leon – stick with the real estate. If employers have been offering a benefit that they could drop before ACA but kept it as a benefit in spite of the raging increases in costs, why would they drop it now that they have guidelines that limit what they would have to pay if any. The employee is responsible for the cost of insurance up to 9.5% of their W2 wages. If the minimum policy costs more than that, they may be given additional leeway by the gov’t to offset the minimum costs. Paying the penalty is a non-taxdeductible cost, how foolish.
Yes Leon, your anonymous blog entries “stand”. What they stand in testament to, I am sure you are very proud of. Now, put your legal name to it and it might matter. Otherwise, you are only scaring people needlessly. Reminds me of the H&R Block commercials.
Dan, I know I am trying to explain something to someone who only wants to iargue his TP line. No amount of facts or logic would affect him.
Richard J Beason | February 27, 2013 at 4:16 pm Leon – stick with the real estate. If employers have been offering a benefit that they could drop before ACA but kept it as a benefit in spite of the raging increases in costs, why would they drop it now that they have guidelines that limit what they would have to pay if any. The employee is responsible for the cost of insurance up to 9.5% of their W2 wages. If the minimum policy costs more than that, they may be given additional leeway by the gov’t to offset the minimum costs. Paying the penalty is a non-taxdeductible cost, how foolish.
Not so fast. . .if the penalty is a tax, as determined by the SC, it would be deductible as an ordinary and necessary business expense. Further, you still ignore that up until ACA it was customary for businesses to provide HINS as a benefit to be able to compete for employees in the labor market.
ACA changes the playing field and businesses will adapt and move in their
best interest. Due to recurring annual increases and government intervention (stupid but true) businesses now have the opportunity to trade off an uncontrollable expense item for an easily quantifiable option. We’ll see what happens. . .as I indicated the massive unemployment problem which Obama continues to add to also serves to make dropping HINS more
palatable for businesses as the labor market is wide open.
102 – Leon – careful now. You know better.
“Dan@100
My comments stand. I am as certified as Beason and have more private industry and public accounting experience.”
Don’t look now, but Leon has just claimed he’s certifiable. I tend to agree . . .
107. – Leon – businessses continue to seek high quality employees despite unemployment. Unemployment is high not because of the lack of jobs, but because so many are not qualified for the jobs available. Industry continues to bid on the highly qualified. As for the penalty (tax) that remains to be seen how the IRS treats it. Either way, you miss the point, companies only have to offer the insurance, employees have to pay the cost.
Leon,
That was an unkind crack I made about you. I apologize. What I meant to say is that you believe a lot of crap that’s strewn by people who seem certifiably insane.
Rather, you seem to be saying that you are a CPA. That would be impressive if it’s true. Is it?
Dan@111. . .since 1981.
Richard J Beason | February 27, 2013 at 5:10 pm
107. – Leon – businessses continue to seek high quality employees despite unemployment. Unemployment is high not because of the lack of jobs, but because so many are not qualified for the jobs available. Industry continues to bid on the highly qualified. As for the penalty (tax) that remains to be seen how the IRS treats it. Either way, you miss the point, companies only have to offer the insurance, employees have to pay the cost.
XXXX Beason, do not forget that a relatively large number of the graduating classes of America’s colleges and universities (think 50%) are working jobs,
if they can get them, that have nothing to do with their major, ability or apptitude. You seem to have blinders on as to how this senseless government intervention will change the playing field of employment. Before,
businesses had to offer healthcare to compete for the best employees. Now,
with healthcare degraded and a government provided option to stop providing
such an expensive benefit many businesses will drop their plans. After paying the penalty they can pass half the savings to new hires in the form of
incentive compensation and pass the rest to the bottom line. IMO the “tax” ,
not penalty, will be deductible as it applies to an item, healthcare expense,
that is deductible. AARP, to the distain of a great many seniors, readily endorsed ACA thinking they would make billions as they are an insurance provider. Ask yourself with the blinders off; where do they expect that business to come from? How many guesses do you need?
IMO, however, ACA is bad law. The Federal government is so messed up
the GAO cannot audit it and it is so corrupt that the American public trusts
no one involved on either side of the aisle. The Federal government’s mismanagement of healthcare will destroy what is the best system in the world. While I agree that changes needed to be made in healthcare to improve it and make it more affordable; ACA does neither.
Your read on this is, IMO, death panel wrong.
Beason@110. . .one further point. The general practice of many employers at this time is to incur the cost of the employee’s insurance while allowing them to cover their families with the group plan at their expense. Starting in 2014 with ACA going full tilt employer’s have a viable opt out. . .to pay the new tax. Having done the responsible thing all that will remain is to figure
out where to invest the savings in the best interest of the business. For those
of us used to having employer subsidized insurance this will be a huge paycut as we write our new insurance payment checks to Obama and his
corrupt cronies. We should, at a minimum, be able to agree on at least one
point Beason; businesses will react to this new playing field in their own best
interest. A second point which I believe you will come around to agreeing to,
once the blinders fall off, is that this government is not acting in the people’s best interest.
Leon,
I’ve enjoyed watching the exchange between you and the libs. They refuse to consider that anything you have to say might be true simply because you offer a different perspective than what they’ve already been accustomed to swallowing. The best was when Dan pointed out to you that “Beason is a CPA” …as though you should then acquiesce, simply because Beason is a CPA! And, they had no idea what they were dealing with until you revealed a little of your own credentials. Well played, sir.
Beason, I can’t wait to see the reaction of the employees who will will be required to pay up to 9.5% of their salary for health insurance. What do you think? Are they going to be happy?
Sandi Saunders | February 27, 2013 at 12:34 pm
The point of the ACA is get more people covered under insurance, not to rob people or business. Using this as a partisan cudgel is so contemptible.
XXX If one wants to go to Richmond. . .if he drives West. . .he will never get there. Good intentions mean nothing when one utilizes the wrong road.
That said. . .the point of ACA was government control of healthcare which amounts to one sixth of the US economy. Unfortunately, for all of us. . .the
corruptocrats in charge are not on the wrong road for this destination..
Leon since 1981? Where is all that experience you claim to hsve You are just a babe. Licence currrent in Va?
Sandi Saunders | February 27, 2013 at 4:34 pm
Yes Leon, your anonymous blog entries “stand”. What they stand in testament to, I am sure you are very proud of. Now, put your legal name to it and it might matter. Otherwise, you are only scaring people needlessly. Reminds me of the H&R Block commercials.
XXX Sandi, we have been through anonymous issue before. Remaining so is my choice. This blog does not require me to provide full identity, therefore,
it is my right to post as Leon.
Obviously, we have a very different viewpoint on a great many issues. If my logic undermines some of the liberal/progressive dogma which sustains you I can understand why such would scare you; however, it is not my intention to do so. My posts are my viewpoint and opinion and, like you, I have a right to express them. It is still a free country, yet.
In my lifetime certainly and, I suspect, the history of the United States save for the decades of 1770 and 1860; the political and social environment which confronts us are the most volatile and dangerous that they have ever been.
My children will have to survive in this changed and changing environment.
Their freedom and future is important to me and thus I speak out and do what I can to stop the madness, deceit and corruption that I see taking control of our Government and trampling our constitution and freedom.
Richard J Beason | February 27, 2013 at 9:13 pm
Leon since 1981? Where is all that experience you claim to hsve You are just a babe. Licence currrent in Va?
XXX Another name caller for Dan’s list. See post 119 regarding anonymous
which I choose to remain on this blog. Try refuting the logic of my posts if you can; cease and desist with the personal attacks,
“Obviously, we have a very different viewpoint on a great many issues. If my logic undermines some of the liberal/progressive dogma which sustains you I can understand why such would scare you; however, it is not my intention to do so.”
–Leon
It’s perfectly conceivable that logic could undermine any kind of dogma. But Leon, your posts aren’t the logic; they’re the dogma. And they themselves are proof that logic and fact doesn’t necessarily undermine dogma.
And btw you’re no licensed CPA and you know it.
by the way, what ARE the required credentials in order particpate on this blog? partisan ideologue? check!
#120 Gosh, Leon, Richard was simply saying that you were wrong in saying you have more experience than him. How is that a personal attack?
-
Now why don’t you give us some more links to certifiable birthers?
Dan Casey | February 27, 2013 at 10:14 pm
“Obviously, we have a very different viewpoint on a great many issues. If my logic undermines some of the liberal/progressive dogma which sustains you I can understand why such would scare you; however, it is not my intention to do so.”
–Leon
It’s perfectly conceivable that logic could undermine any kind of dogma. But Leon, your posts aren’t the logic; they’re the dogma. And they themselves are proof that logic and fact doesn’t necessarily undermine dogma.
And btw you’re no licensed CPA and you know it.
Send me an e-mail Dan, . .you have my address.
Dan@121. . .I tried to forward you an e-mail; it was returned. Send me an e-mail and we can put this to rest confidentially.
9.5% for Health Insurance? That’s pretty close to what I pay. Happy to do so.
Leon, my email address is dan(dot)casey@roanoke.com
I just tested it. It’s working fine if you want to send me an email. Note the dot.
Frank | February 27, 2013 at 10:38 pm
by the way, what ARE the required credentials in order particpate on this blog? partisan ideologue? check!
Yes Frank you meet that qualification perfectly.
Leon You don’ t like having your credentials anf experience questioned; yet you did not mind questioning mine? Mine is readily available; yours should be too if you want to hold yourself out ad a CPA.
Richard J Beason | February 28, 2013 at 7:14 am Leon You don’ t like having your credentials anf experience questioned; yet you did not mind questioning mine? Mine is readily available; yours should be too if you want to hold yourself out ad a CPA.
XXX I have not, am not, nor will not; do so as a blog poster. I choose to post anonymously and this is allowed per the rules under the blog. BTW I have not questioned either your experience or credentials. @102 I made a statement about my experience, which, IMO is true. What I have questioned are your opinions and viewpoint. I request that you try to refute the points I make in my posts rather than persist in this personal vendetta attempting to obtain information which I have already declared my right to privacy.
Leon – oh but you have questioned my credentials and now tout yours “I am as certified as Beason and have more private industry and public accounting experience.” Perhaps you stretch a bit.
Frank – 9.5% appears about what insurance premiums cost today for a middle age employee. The ACA does away with age adjusting, so premiums will average out. As for employers, they can choose to continue to pay benefits or do as Leon suggests and cut employees benefits and perhaps lose good emplloyees. Their choice under ACA.
Fyi, a correction:
Apparently I was incorrect about Leon’s credentials. Privately, he furnished me with a name and license number that checks out as active. My apologies, Leon.
Licensed as what.
Kristen, as a CPA.
Leon, as usual (and it speaks so well of you), you completely misconstrue my point. You expect me or anyone else to give an anonymous blog entity credit for your “facts” and “logic” strewn with enough back woods redneck vitriol and bitter partisan “birther” crap to sink a battleship. It is simply and literally never going to happen.
–
What you “undermine” is your own efforts. Why you cannot see that truly bothers me.
–
Whatever our respective “viewpoint” on any issue, the truth remains the truth and you befoul it with your partisan, dishonest and totally credibility lacking comments about the government and President Obama.
–
You do not “scare me” on behalf of truth or fact, you scare me on quite the opposite. You are a dangerous man in many ways, your sophistry is merely the most prevalent.
–
You have every right to express your bile and your bilge, but you question the credibility and logic of people who are not anonymous while reserving that safety for yourself and that I cannot abide. It is cowardice IMO.
–
Thanks to my belief that not enough people are like you, Frank, Suzie and pammala, I do not have the fear for the future of this nation or of my government that you display.
–
You sir, are part of “the madness, deceit and corruption” you claim to revile. THAT is your problem.
I’m not sure whether it’s a relief or even scarier to find out that Leon really is a CPA. After all, Leon is the guy who linked us to a bizarre blog as possible evidence that Obama isn’t a citizen. A blog written by a guy who also wrote this:
-
“I am not Lee D’onofrio or Burnweed.
Those are names of the body I have used as a spacesuit to appear here before you on planet Earth.
My real name is The Paraclete. And Reni IS The Messiah. The Paraclete aka The Spirit of Truth, aka The Holy Spirit is the third person of Trinity. As Jesus stated in the Gospel of John, he has sent me to condemn Satan and glorify the Messiah.
The Holy Spirit concept derives from the word “Paraclete” which translates as “advocate” or “lawyer.” I am a lawyer, God’s lawyer. They never told you “he” would come as a man, they lied about me denying me a place in the world of men. But Jesus made it clear he would send a man. Do your homework because he said he’d send “another” like him, another man. That’s me people. Freaky? Yes. True? You bet your sweet human ass that mine is divine. I speak with a mandate from Heaven.
At this moment in time, the name for the body I am using has been changed to Jet Wintzer. I am spreading the prophecies given to me by God, the Father, to the world through my asskicking new band Schizo FunAddict.”
-
Leon – Your demeanor changed as your profession was disclosed. Perhaps your dialogue will now be professional.
Sand and Richard, you may dismiss it as “partisan cudgel” but in reality, it is what is happening. And Sandi, one quick question. Once again you are on the attack against the “anonymous blog entities” that come under attack when you don’t like the direction of the debate. My question is, do you feel the same way about gdad, Kristen, Shillary and any number of other liberal posters who also post under pseudonyms? Or does the fact that you agree with their politics make their posts more legitimate in your mind?
Chuck, you are complaining about ACA being a private controlled plan. The Gov’t does not control what the companies do outside of hte basic regulations. The companies and the employees get to make their own decisions. Had we had a single payer plan, the government would have protected everyone, but, to stay away from that, ACA allows individual decisions that may mean employees have to get their own coverage. As part of that, the employees are guaranteed they can get coverage at an affordable rate.
What’s your beef?