Other Resources The Political Joe » Affordable Care Act for dummies version Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 6
 
 
2013-10-30 12:23 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Champion
11989
500050001000500100100100100252525
Philly 'burbs
Subject: RE: Affordable Care Act for dummies version

I was just in the gym here at work and on the TV there was a "hearing" with Sebelius in front of some House committee. What a joke!  Are all hearings like that, where the committee members make speeches and grind axes instead of really trying to get answers to questions?



Edited by mrbbrad 2013-10-30 12:29 PM


2013-10-30 12:32 PM
in reply to: mrbbrad

User image

Member
465
1001001001002525
Subject: RE: Affordable Care Act for dummies version
Originally posted by mrbbrad

I was just in the gym here at work and on the TV there was a "hearing" with Sebelius in front of some House committee. What a joke!  Are all hearings like that, where the committee members make speeches and grind axes instead of really trying to get answers to questions?




Yes....they want to show to their constituents how smart and important they are.
2013-10-30 1:39 PM
in reply to: Jackemy1

User image

Champion
15211
500050005000100100
Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL
Subject: RE: Affordable Care Act for dummies version

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by mrbbrad

I was just in the gym here at work and on the TV there was a "hearing" with Sebelius in front of some House committee. What a joke!  Are all hearings like that, where the committee members make speeches and grind axes instead of really trying to get answers to questions?

Yes....they want to show to their constituents how smart and important they are.

When in reality they are only impotant. 

2013-10-30 2:08 PM
in reply to: crowny2

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Affordable Care Act for dummies version

Originally posted by crowny2

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by mrbbrad

I was just in the gym here at work and on the TV there was a "hearing" with Sebelius in front of some House committee. What a joke!  Are all hearings like that, where the committee members make speeches and grind axes instead of really trying to get answers to questions?

Yes....they want to show to their constituents how smart and important they are.

When in reality they are only impotant. 

lol, so true

2013-10-30 3:20 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
6962
500010005001001001001002525
Atlanta, Ga
Subject: RE: Affordable Care Act for dummies version
I appreciate you guys answering my question. I knew it was too simple! Too bad...
2013-10-30 4:09 PM
in reply to: mrbbrad

User image

Master
1730
100050010010025
Straight outta Compton
Subject: RE: Affordable Care Act for dummies version
Sebelius actually said that men often need maternity care:

Ellmers: But men are required to purchase maternity coverage.
Sebelius: Well, an insurance policy has a series of benefits whether you use them or not…
Ellmers: And that is why health care premiums are increasing, because we are forcing them to buy things that they will never need. Thank you.
Sebelius: The individual policies cover families. Men often do need maternity care for their spouses and for their families, yes.
Ellmers: A single male, aged 32, does need maternity coverage. To the best of your knowledge, has a man ever delivered a baby?


2013-10-30 5:34 PM
in reply to: mcgilmartin

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Affordable Care Act for dummies version

Originally posted by mcgilmartin Sebelius actually said that men often need maternity care: Ellmers: But men are required to purchase maternity coverage. Sebelius: Well, an insurance policy has a series of benefits whether you use them or not… Ellmers: And that is why health care premiums are increasing, because we are forcing them to buy things that they will never need. Thank you. Sebelius: The individual policies cover families. Men often do need maternity care for their spouses and for their families, yes. Ellmers: A single male, aged 32, does need maternity coverage. To the best of your knowledge, has a man ever delivered a baby?

I'm probably the last to defend the administration, but I would suspect the insurance companies factor this in to some extent.  Yes, we have to provide maternity coverage for men, but the payout will be $0 so therefore it doesn't effect the rates.

I could be wrong of course, and it does look really silly for sure.  

2013-10-30 5:53 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Affordable Care Act for dummies version

New spin about why everyone's policies are getting canceled.  Contrary to what my employees and I thought we must have had a "cut-rate plan that didn't offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident."  It all makes sense now.  Thanks Obama.  

Obama blames ‘bad apple insurers’ for canceled insurance plans

 

2013-10-30 8:55 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Master
2380
2000100100100252525
Beijing
Subject: RE: Affordable Care Act for dummies version

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Jackemy1
Originally posted by Marvarnett
Originally posted by Jackemy1 Just met with my insurance agent to go over options for my company. Our current insurance plan is not available on the exchange which blows. I love my plan, my employees love their plan. My daughter has unfortunately run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medicals bill in the last couple years and every cent about the initial deductible has been covered. So the plan I offer is not junk. So what is offered is a plan that is worse than what I got. It is worse for my employees and my family. Not only is it worse, my rates are increasing 54%. I know the decisions that I will be making to offset this added cost to do business will not be good for the economy as I will have to reduce planned raises or have employees kick in towards benefits. I will also try to increase rates but that is not always possible because of competition. I am just one small company with 13 employees. Just imagine the millions of other businesses with less than 50 employees faced with that same decision in the next few weeks.
In my opinion, this might be the best opportunity for companies to get out of a field they have no business in. Jackemy1, I don't know what your company does, but I'm assuming it's not healthcare. So why not get out of the business of having to deal with it. Instead, provide a lump sum that allows your employees to decide what kind of healthcare they want to spend it on? If SBOs and then Large companies did this, it would force the insurance companies to become more competitive and also allow you (Jackemy1 and others) to focus on their core business. I know I'm being simplistic here, but why is this not the route that is being pursued? Note: Yes, I see problems like how much do you provide, does the single male get the same amount as the married w/ 4 kids, etc.
I pay 100% of my employee's premium. If they add their family, they pay for that. Everyone at the company has the same rate. That is changing with Obama care. Older employee's premiums are 1.5x to 2x more that my younger ones. I am all for decoupling health insurance with employment. However, the 1954 Revenue Act created a tax situation that makes it much more costly to to do what you are suggesting. For tax purposes, health insurance premiums are tax deductible for employers and payments employers make on behalf of employees are tax fee for employees. Payments also are not taxed with employment tax and not included in workman comp rate calculation. That adds up to a huge disincentive that any financially smart business person would say the cost is too much. Obamacare doesn't fix that. So individuals would still be paying insurance with after-tax dollars and any additional salary I would pay would reduce any tax credit my employee receives. As an employer I still would pay pre-tax dollars and not pay employment tax and increased workers comp rates.

+1

I'm also all for decoupling healthcare from my business and just giving a credit, but it would be a net effect of giving my employees far less $ towards healthcare and it would also make my company far less competitive with hiring new prospective employees.

I pay 100% of my employees healthcare as well with an HSA (pre-tax) and then I contribute $250/mo. per employee into their HSA account (pre-tax) to cover their deductible of $3000 on the HSA.

I forget the exact rate, but lets just say it's $300/mo. for the healthcare and then throw in the $250 to make it $550/mo. per employee is my current cost and I get to deduct that full amount.  Pretty much all of my employees are healthy so the net at the end of the year is they have free healthcare and an HSA retirement account with $3000 in it.

If I were to just give them an additional $550/mo. in compensation for them to use towards the exchange we will both have to pay Federal and state taxes on that so their actual take home would likely be closer to $350, and their income goes up another $6600/yr. which could impact their tax situation.  Then with the $350 they could likely get a bronze plan that gives them coverage, but they would still have a high deductible that they'd have to meet.  So, they'd end up with a potential higher tax burden and more out of pocket on their healthcare.

I just want to say that you guys are awesome.  If I ever move to NE or wherever Jackemy is from, I know where I'm going to knock on the door when I'm looking for a job.

 

2013-10-31 2:45 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Expert
2180
2000100252525
Boise, Idaho
Subject: RE: Affordable Care Act for dummies version

Originally posted by mcgilmartin Sebelius actually said that men often need maternity care: Ellmers: But men are required to purchase maternity coverage. Sebelius: Well, an insurance policy has a series of benefits whether you use them or not… Ellmers: And that is why health care premiums are increasing, because we are forcing them to buy things that they will never need. Thank you. Sebelius: The individual policies cover families. Men often do need maternity care for their spouses and for their families, yes. Ellmers: A single male, aged 32, does need maternity coverage. To the best of your knowledge, has a man ever delivered a baby?

Are you using this as an example of why congressional hearing are a joke or to highlight the fact that Rep. Ellmers is a grandstanding beeawch? 

(no disrespect to anyone related to, or otherwise associated with,  the Honorable Rep. Ellmers)



Edited by jeffnboise 2013-10-31 2:57 PM
2013-10-31 3:04 PM
in reply to: jeffnboise

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: Affordable Care Act for dummies version

Originally posted by jeffnboise

Originally posted by mcgilmartin Sebelius actually said that men often need maternity care: Ellmers: But men are required to purchase maternity coverage. Sebelius: Well, an insurance policy has a series of benefits whether you use them or not… Ellmers: And that is why health care premiums are increasing, because we are forcing them to buy things that they will never need. Thank you. Sebelius: The individual policies cover families. Men often do need maternity care for their spouses and for their families, yes. Ellmers: A single male, aged 32, does need maternity coverage. To the best of your knowledge, has a man ever delivered a baby?

Are you using this as an example of why congressional hearing are a joke or to highlight the fact that Rep. Ellmers is a grandstanding beeawch? 

(no disrespect to anyone related to, or otherwise associated with,  the Honorable Rep. Ellmers)

can I just x2 this



2013-10-31 3:17 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Veteran
1019
1000
St. Louis
Subject: RE: Affordable Care Act for dummies version

Originally posted by mcgilmartin Sebelius actually said that men often need maternity care: Ellmers: But men are required to purchase maternity coverage. Sebelius: Well, an insurance policy has a series of benefits whether you use them or not… Ellmers: And that is why health care premiums are increasing, because we are forcing them to buy things that they will never need. Thank you. Sebelius: The individual policies cover families. Men often do need maternity care for their spouses and for their families, yes. Ellmers: A single male, aged 32, does need maternity coverage. To the best of your knowledge, has a man ever delivered a baby?

Boom, in your face Rep. Ellmers!



Edited by kevin_trapp 2013-10-31 3:18 PM




(labor-of-love.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
labor-of-love.jpg (37KB - 9 downloads)
2013-11-01 1:35 PM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Champion
11989
500050001000500100100100100252525
Philly 'burbs
Subject: RE: Affordable Care Act for dummies version

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by jeffnboise

Originally posted by mcgilmartin Sebelius actually said that men often need maternity care: Ellmers: But men are required to purchase maternity coverage. Sebelius: Well, an insurance policy has a series of benefits whether you use them or not… Ellmers: And that is why health care premiums are increasing, because we are forcing them to buy things that they will never need. Thank you. Sebelius: The individual policies cover families. Men often do need maternity care for their spouses and for their families, yes. Ellmers: A single male, aged 32, does need maternity coverage. To the best of your knowledge, has a man ever delivered a baby?

Are you using this as an example of why congressional hearing are a joke or to highlight the fact that Rep. Ellmers is a grandstanding beeawch? 

(no disrespect to anyone related to, or otherwise associated with,  the Honorable Rep. Ellmers)

can I just x2 this

 

Or x3??

I saw this exchange and it is one of the reasons I posed my question. This one, and the guy who kept asking her why she didn't sign up for "Obamacare", and she kept saying "I'm not eligible", but he kept on her about why she didn't sign up. 

Was it Ellmers who was saying something about the government and how "they" do this and "they" did that? My head almost exploded... HEY, LADY, you ARE the government!!

 

2013-11-01 1:40 PM
in reply to: mrbbrad

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Affordable Care Act for dummies version
2013-11-01 2:01 PM
in reply to: mrbbrad

User image

Master
1585
1000500252525
Folsom (Sacramento), CA
Subject: RE: Affordable Care Act for dummies version
Originally posted by mrbbrad

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by jeffnboise

Originally posted by mcgilmartin Sebelius actually said that men often need maternity care: Ellmers: But men are required to purchase maternity coverage. Sebelius: Well, an insurance policy has a series of benefits whether you use them or not… Ellmers: And that is why health care premiums are increasing, because we are forcing them to buy things that they will never need. Thank you. Sebelius: The individual policies cover families. Men often do need maternity care for their spouses and for their families, yes. Ellmers: A single male, aged 32, does need maternity coverage. To the best of your knowledge, has a man ever delivered a baby?

Are you using this as an example of why congressional hearing are a joke or to highlight the fact that Rep. Ellmers is a grandstanding beeawch? 

(no disrespect to anyone related to, or otherwise associated with,  the Honorable Rep. Ellmers)

can I just x2 this

 

Or x3??

I saw this exchange and it is one of the reasons I posed my question. This one, and the guy who kept asking her why she didn't sign up for "Obamacare", and she kept saying "I'm not eligible", but he kept on her about why she didn't sign up. 

Was it Ellmers who was saying something about the government and how "they" do this and "they" did that? My head almost exploded... HEY, LADY, you ARE the government!!

 




The funny part is even though Sebelius said she wasn't eligible and that it is illegal for her to get insurance on the exchange, she is absolutely wrong. It would make no sense to do so since she would lose her employer funded healthcare and she wouldn't be eligible for tax credits because she was offered healtcare through her job, but she absolutely could choose to.

Then again, I guess we can't expect the person overseeing the ACA to actually understand it.
2013-11-01 2:51 PM
in reply to: jeffnboise

User image

Master
1730
100050010010025
Straight outta Compton
Subject: RE: Affordable Care Act for dummies version
Not really. More like I would like an explanation of why a 32 year old SINGLE man would need maternity coverage. Sec. Sebelius couldn't answer, so I guess I'm left with my own conclusion that it's yet another stupid liberal "We the Government know what's best for you idiots" solution. Of course, I know the real answer is that the idea is to make everyone buy crap they don't need and won't use, thereby subsidizing those who do need and will use.

Oh, but wait. That sounds like "take from Peter, give to Paul". (GASP) That's socialism!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I admit I'm mocking here, but it still stands that this is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever created, and that says a lot given how awful our Congress is (both houses and parties included).


2013-11-01 4:17 PM
in reply to: mcgilmartin

User image

Expert
1240
100010010025
Columbia, MO
Subject: RE: Affordable Care Act for dummies version

Originally posted by mcgilmartin Not really. More like I would like an explanation of why a 32 year old SINGLE man would need maternity coverage. Sec. Sebelius couldn't answer, so I guess I'm left with my own conclusion that it's yet another stupid liberal "We the Government know what's best for you idiots" solution. Of course, I know the real answer is that the idea is to make everyone buy crap they don't need and won't use, thereby subsidizing those who do need and will use. Oh, but wait. That sounds like "take from Peter, give to Paul". (GASP) That's socialism!!!!!!!!!!!!! I admit I'm mocking here, but it still stands that this is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever created, and that says a lot given how awful our Congress is (both houses and parties included).

Bolding is mine, but x2 to everything said here.

2013-11-01 4:24 PM
in reply to: jeffnboise

User image

Expert
1240
100010010025
Columbia, MO
Subject: RE: Affordable Care Act for dummies version

Originally posted by jeffnboise

. Ellmers is a grandstanding beeawch? 

 

Why because she actually threw in questions that weren't softballs, and pointed out how ridiculous most of this Law(Tax) is?

 

Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass it to find out what was in it.....now that we are finding out, it's a big heaping pile of bovine excrement.

2013-11-01 4:30 PM
in reply to: mrbbrad

User image

Master
1730
100050010010025
Straight outta Compton
Subject: RE: Affordable Care Act for dummies version
Originally posted by mrbbrad

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by jeffnboise

Originally posted by mcgilmartin Sebelius actually said that men often need maternity care: Ellmers: But men are required to purchase maternity coverage. Sebelius: Well, an insurance policy has a series of benefits whether you use them or not… Ellmers: And that is why health care premiums are increasing, because we are forcing them to buy things that they will never need. Thank you. Sebelius: The individual policies cover families. Men often do need maternity care for their spouses and for their families, yes. Ellmers: A single male, aged 32, does need maternity coverage. To the best of your knowledge, has a man ever delivered a baby?

Are you using this as an example of why congressional hearing are a joke or to highlight the fact that Rep. Ellmers is a grandstanding beeawch? 

(no disrespect to anyone related to, or otherwise associated with,  the Honorable Rep. Ellmers)

can I just x2 this

 

Or x3??

I saw this exchange and it is one of the reasons I posed my question. This one, and the guy who kept asking her why she didn't sign up for "Obamacare", and she kept saying "I'm not eligible", but he kept on her about why she didn't sign up. 

Was it Ellmers who was saying something about the government and how "they" do this and "they" did that? My head almost exploded... HEY, LADY, you ARE the government!!

 



Um, no, it's quite appropriate for her to say "they" when referring to the Democratic Congress that passed this monstrosity. See, Ellmers wasn't voted into office until 2010. The ACA was passed in late 2008/2009, before her time. Use of "they" is appropriate when referring to Congress when she wasn't a member.
2013-11-01 4:58 PM
in reply to: mcgilmartin

User image

Champion
11989
500050001000500100100100100252525
Philly 'burbs
Subject: RE: Affordable Care Act for dummies version

Originally posted by mcgilmartin
Originally posted by mrbbrad

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by jeffnboise

Originally posted by mcgilmartin Sebelius actually said that men often need maternity care: Ellmers: But men are required to purchase maternity coverage. Sebelius: Well, an insurance policy has a series of benefits whether you use them or not… Ellmers: And that is why health care premiums are increasing, because we are forcing them to buy things that they will never need. Thank you. Sebelius: The individual policies cover families. Men often do need maternity care for their spouses and for their families, yes. Ellmers: A single male, aged 32, does need maternity coverage. To the best of your knowledge, has a man ever delivered a baby?

Are you using this as an example of why congressional hearing are a joke or to highlight the fact that Rep. Ellmers is a grandstanding beeawch? 

(no disrespect to anyone related to, or otherwise associated with,  the Honorable Rep. Ellmers)

can I just x2 this

 

Or x3??

I saw this exchange and it is one of the reasons I posed my question. This one, and the guy who kept asking her why she didn't sign up for "Obamacare", and she kept saying "I'm not eligible", but he kept on her about why she didn't sign up. 

Was it Ellmers who was saying something about the government and how "they" do this and "they" did that? My head almost exploded... HEY, LADY, you ARE the government!!

 

Um, no, it's quite appropriate for her to say "they" when referring to the Democratic Congress that passed this monstrosity. See, Ellmers wasn't voted into office until 2010. The ACA was passed in late 2008/2009, before her time. Use of "they" is appropriate when referring to Congress when she wasn't a member.

Um, no, she didn't say anything about the Dems. She said "Government" and "They". In that regard she literally is they.

2013-11-03 6:38 PM
in reply to: tuwood


297
100100252525
Arden, North Carolina
Subject: RE: Affordable Care Act for dummies version
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by NXS A subsidy is nothing more than someone else paying for part of your insurance. Call me cold hearted, but I don't like being FORCED to pay for anyone's healthcare.

I explained it this way to a friend earlier today.

  1. Problem:  Lots of people don't have healthcare because they have pre-existing conditions and/or it's too expensive.
    Solution: Force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions.
  2. Side Effect: Insurance company costs increase dramatically.
    Solution:  Insurance companies raise rates to offset higher payouts.
  3. Side Effect: Insurance becomes even more expensive and fewer people will be able to purchase insurance
    Solution: Force everyone to buy insurance and provide subsidies for lower income people to pay for it via tax credits.  Make them pay a penalty/tax if they refuse.   This will put more money into the pool to help lower insurance rates.
  4. Side Effect: Insurance is still too expensive and few will still be able to afford it, resulting in most just having a new tax/penalty.
    Pre-Existing crowd is now able to get insurance, but everyone else pays higher rates, poor and young still don't have insurance.
    Solution: Dunno

 




Solution: Single Payer System like every other advanced country in the world. Unfortunate that Obama adopted the Republican system of healthcare first advanced by the Heritage foundation. Single payer has better results and reduced costs (assuming you believe in actual numbers and statistics).



2013-11-04 6:20 AM
in reply to: TriDadinAsheville

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Affordable Care Act for dummies version

Originally posted by TriDadinAsheville
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by NXS A subsidy is nothing more than someone else paying for part of your insurance. Call me cold hearted, but I don't like being FORCED to pay for anyone's healthcare.

I explained it this way to a friend earlier today.

  1. Problem:  Lots of people don't have healthcare because they have pre-existing conditions and/or it's too expensive.
    Solution: Force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions.
  2. Side Effect: Insurance company costs increase dramatically.
    Solution:  Insurance companies raise rates to offset higher payouts.
  3. Side Effect: Insurance becomes even more expensive and fewer people will be able to purchase insurance
    Solution: Force everyone to buy insurance and provide subsidies for lower income people to pay for it via tax credits.  Make them pay a penalty/tax if they refuse.   This will put more money into the pool to help lower insurance rates.
  4. Side Effect: Insurance is still too expensive and few will still be able to afford it, resulting in most just having a new tax/penalty.
    Pre-Existing crowd is now able to get insurance, but everyone else pays higher rates, poor and young still don't have insurance.
    Solution: Dunno

 

Solution: Single Payer System like every other advanced country in the world. Unfortunate that Obama adopted the Republican system of healthcare first advanced by the Heritage foundation. Single payer has better results and reduced costs (assuming you believe in actual numbers and statistics).

I do have to say I chuckle every time I read an Obama supporter trying to convince people that Obamacare was a republican idea.  It almost makes one think the Democrats are trying to distance themselves from the Presidents largest accomplishment.  ;-)  Wonder why that is?

btw, here's Heritage's response to what they recommended back in the 90's and I'd say it's a stretch to say it's Obamacare.  http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/06/dont-blame-heritage-for-obamacare-mandate/

I personally believe a "mandate" to purchase insurance is a part of the solution, but it needs to be a mandate with affordable catastrophic insurance options.  If everyone is mandated to purchase plans that are too expensive then the mandate is nothing more than an additional tax on everyone.

2013-11-04 10:15 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Veteran
1019
1000
St. Louis
Subject: RE: Affordable Care Act for dummies version

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by TriDadinAsheville
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by NXS A subsidy is nothing more than someone else paying for part of your insurance. Call me cold hearted, but I don't like being FORCED to pay for anyone's healthcare.

I explained it this way to a friend earlier today.

  1. Problem:  Lots of people don't have healthcare because they have pre-existing conditions and/or it's too expensive.
    Solution: Force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions.
  2. Side Effect: Insurance company costs increase dramatically.
    Solution:  Insurance companies raise rates to offset higher payouts.
  3. Side Effect: Insurance becomes even more expensive and fewer people will be able to purchase insurance
    Solution: Force everyone to buy insurance and provide subsidies for lower income people to pay for it via tax credits.  Make them pay a penalty/tax if they refuse.   This will put more money into the pool to help lower insurance rates.
  4. Side Effect: Insurance is still too expensive and few will still be able to afford it, resulting in most just having a new tax/penalty.
    Pre-Existing crowd is now able to get insurance, but everyone else pays higher rates, poor and young still don't have insurance.
    Solution: Dunno

 

Solution: Single Payer System like every other advanced country in the world. Unfortunate that Obama adopted the Republican system of healthcare first advanced by the Heritage foundation. Single payer has better results and reduced costs (assuming you believe in actual numbers and statistics).

I do have to say I chuckle every time I read an Obama supporter trying to convince people that Obamacare was a republican idea.  It almost makes one think the Democrats are trying to distance themselves from the Presidents largest accomplishment.  ;-)  Wonder why that is?

btw, here's Heritage's response to what they recommended back in the 90's and I'd say it's a stretch to say it's Obamacare.  http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/06/dont-blame-heritage-for-obamacare-mandate/

I personally believe a "mandate" to purchase insurance is a part of the solution, but it needs to be a mandate with affordable catastrophic insurance options.  If everyone is mandated to purchase plans that are too expensive then the mandate is nothing more than an additional tax on everyone.

I think Mr. Butler is trying to rewrite history just a bit.  First off, he says he was proposing a viable alternative to President Clinton's universal health care plan. All well and good, except that he wrote his original views in 1989, just a short time after Bush Sr. was sworn in to office. You can read his entire original piece here  Heritage proposal

He also says that his proposal was for insurance to cover catastrophic costs, in the same way automobile insurance does.  While he does use the analogy of automobile owners being required to carry liability insurance, he never says that mandate was only for catastrophic costs.  The bullet point header is "Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance".  Maybe he intended to say that the mandate was for catastrophic coverage and not comprehensive insurance, but in nine pages of written text, somehow that failed to make it in.

Finally, he calls out several liberals for perpetuating the "myth" and states that Heritage did not invent the individual mandate, yet doesn't say where the idea came from.  Which I find odd given that this article came out several months after the GOP debate in which Romney accused Newt of creating the individual mandate and Newt replying no way buddy, it was the Heritage Foundation that thought it up. (GOP debate, skip to about 2:10)  So when the Dems are crediting the Heritage Foundation for the individual mandate, and the GOP is blaming the Heritage Foundation for the individual mandate, and the Heritage Foundation can't provide an alternative source for inventing the individual mandate, then I'm going to assume it was the brain child of the Heritage Foundation.

On a related note, once Clinton did become president and started pushing for Hillarycare, Republicans introduced a piece of legislation in that was loosely based on the Heritage Foundation's proposals and surprisingly similar to Obamacare.  The text of the "Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993" can be read here, along with a listing of its 20 Republican co-sponsors.  Kit Bond, Orrin Hatch, Arlen Spector, Bob Dole, Ted Stevens, yada yada.  You can skip the official text and read a pretty good summary of its provisions here.  Employer mandates (with excise taxes imposed on companies that fail to comply), individual mandates, formation of purchasing groups for individuals and small businesses, can't be rejected for pre-existing conditions, vouchers for low income families that do not qualify for Medicaid.  Sounds a whole lot like Obamacare to me.

If Obamacare wasn't originally a Republican idea, then the Republicans spent a whole lot of time in the 90's fighting for a Democratic idea.

2013-11-04 11:04 AM
in reply to: kevin_trapp

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Affordable Care Act for dummies version

Originally posted by kevin_trapp

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by TriDadinAsheville
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by NXS A subsidy is nothing more than someone else paying for part of your insurance. Call me cold hearted, but I don't like being FORCED to pay for anyone's healthcare.

I explained it this way to a friend earlier today.

  1. Problem:  Lots of people don't have healthcare because they have pre-existing conditions and/or it's too expensive.
    Solution: Force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions.
  2. Side Effect: Insurance company costs increase dramatically.
    Solution:  Insurance companies raise rates to offset higher payouts.
  3. Side Effect: Insurance becomes even more expensive and fewer people will be able to purchase insurance
    Solution: Force everyone to buy insurance and provide subsidies for lower income people to pay for it via tax credits.  Make them pay a penalty/tax if they refuse.   This will put more money into the pool to help lower insurance rates.
  4. Side Effect: Insurance is still too expensive and few will still be able to afford it, resulting in most just having a new tax/penalty.
    Pre-Existing crowd is now able to get insurance, but everyone else pays higher rates, poor and young still don't have insurance.
    Solution: Dunno

 

Solution: Single Payer System like every other advanced country in the world. Unfortunate that Obama adopted the Republican system of healthcare first advanced by the Heritage foundation. Single payer has better results and reduced costs (assuming you believe in actual numbers and statistics).

I do have to say I chuckle every time I read an Obama supporter trying to convince people that Obamacare was a republican idea.  It almost makes one think the Democrats are trying to distance themselves from the Presidents largest accomplishment.  ;-)  Wonder why that is?

btw, here's Heritage's response to what they recommended back in the 90's and I'd say it's a stretch to say it's Obamacare.  http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/06/dont-blame-heritage-for-obamacare-mandate/

I personally believe a "mandate" to purchase insurance is a part of the solution, but it needs to be a mandate with affordable catastrophic insurance options.  If everyone is mandated to purchase plans that are too expensive then the mandate is nothing more than an additional tax on everyone.

I think Mr. Butler is trying to rewrite history just a bit.  First off, he says he was proposing a viable alternative to President Clinton's universal health care plan. All well and good, except that he wrote his original views in 1989, just a short time after Bush Sr. was sworn in to office. You can read his entire original piece here  Heritage proposal

He also says that his proposal was for insurance to cover catastrophic costs, in the same way automobile insurance does.  While he does use the analogy of automobile owners being required to carry liability insurance, he never says that mandate was only for catastrophic costs.  The bullet point header is "Mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance".  Maybe he intended to say that the mandate was for catastrophic coverage and not comprehensive insurance, but in nine pages of written text, somehow that failed to make it in.

Finally, he calls out several liberals for perpetuating the "myth" and states that Heritage did not invent the individual mandate, yet doesn't say where the idea came from.  Which I find odd given that this article came out several months after the GOP debate in which Romney accused Newt of creating the individual mandate and Newt replying no way buddy, it was the Heritage Foundation that thought it up. (GOP debate, skip to about 2:10)  So when the Dems are crediting the Heritage Foundation for the individual mandate, and the GOP is blaming the Heritage Foundation for the individual mandate, and the Heritage Foundation can't provide an alternative source for inventing the individual mandate, then I'm going to assume it was the brain child of the Heritage Foundation.

On a related note, once Clinton did become president and started pushing for Hillarycare, Republicans introduced a piece of legislation in that was loosely based on the Heritage Foundation's proposals and surprisingly similar to Obamacare.  The text of the "Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993" can be read here, along with a listing of its 20 Republican co-sponsors.  Kit Bond, Orrin Hatch, Arlen Spector, Bob Dole, Ted Stevens, yada yada.  You can skip the official text and read a pretty good summary of its provisions here.  Employer mandates (with excise taxes imposed on companies that fail to comply), individual mandates, formation of purchasing groups for individuals and small businesses, can't be rejected for pre-existing conditions, vouchers for low income families that do not qualify for Medicaid.  Sounds a whole lot like Obamacare to me.

If Obamacare wasn't originally a Republican idea, then the Republicans spent a whole lot of time in the 90's fighting for a Democratic idea.

I actually agree with the idea of mandating a catastrophic insurance policy, so I'm not sure what the big controversy is there.  However, I'm still trying to understand why the supporters of the ACA are trying so hard to say Obamacare is actually just the Democrats implementing a Republican idea.  It's almost like things aren't going too well so they're desperately trying to find somebody else to blame.

Also, the individual mandate isn't the problem with the ACA, it's all of the mandatory coverages in addition to the mandate that are the problem.  If the ACA were simply an individual mandate that required everyone to get coverage (of some kind) and then provided subsidies for lower income individuals it would be considerably better than what it is from a financial standpoint.  Unfortunately, the administration went a lot further than just requiring a mandate.  They required a mandate in addition to massive new minimum coverages (right or wrong) which are driving the cost of the insurance policies up significantly.

Either way, good luck getting it to stick that the ACA was the Republicans fault when not a single one of them voted for it and they "shut down the government" trying to stop it.

2013-11-04 11:10 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
5361
50001001001002525
Subject: RE: Affordable Care Act for dummies version

Originally posted by tuwood

I do have to say I chuckle every time I read an Obama supporter trying to convince people that Obamacare was a republican idea. ...

 

then you are misinformed.  you need to do some googling. 

funny thing about the internet these days is, that no matter what you believe, if you go searching for it, you'll find an article or an opinion that confirms your hypothesis.  the article you linked was pretty weak; claiming that it heritage's 1989 paper wasn't the same as the ACA.  Well, it wasn't exactly the same, but it operated off exactly the same principles (that the GOP is running away from today), and promoted the idea that all americans should be guaranteed access to affordable healthcare and that we should mandate households to purchase insurance.  

funny thing is, you don't need to go back to 1989. the mandate based healthcare system was the cornerstone of GOP policy not only through the 1990's, but as late as 2009 and into 2010.  There are plenty of videos and quotes from nearly all the GOP spokespeople and leadership during that period.

So chuckle all you want. And, be against a mandate based healthcare model all you want.  But to deny that it was the prior GOP plan is being willfully ignorant.  

New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » Affordable Care Act for dummies version Rss Feed  
 
 
of 6
 
 
RELATED POSTS

On the street interviews 'Obamacare' vs. Affordable Care Act

Started by tolefanjh
Views: 1386 Posts: 4

2013-10-02 9:24 AM msteiner

Supreme Court stops use of key part of Voting Rights Act

Started by DanielG
Views: 2176 Posts: 22

2013-07-03 3:23 PM TriRSquared
RELATED ARTICLES
date : September 24, 2012
comments : 1
Your wetsuit is a substantial investment, and proper care will extend its life considerably.
 
date : September 3, 2008
author : Ontherun
comments : 1
The first video in this series will go through some wetsuit basics: what is a triathlon wetsuit, different styles, rules for racing with a wetsuit and wetsuit care and fit.
date : November 28, 2004
author : sekhmet
comments : 1
I challenge all BT readers who want to shed the pounds to stay committed to their training during the colder months. Share this commitment with others.