What is wrong with some of us in this country?

[AZMike]

Fred, what is your view on the eligibility standards for health care subsidies under Obamacare? Federal subsidies set at 400% of the poverty level (i.e., at $90,000.00), when the median family income in the U.S. is about $50,000.00 seem more than a little unsustainable to me. If the financial disincentives to employers under Obamacare cause them to dump health care programs (especially if the first employers' reductions lead to an avalanche effect), that would mean we (you and I, the taxpayers) would have to cover the subsidy for health care costs for about 63% of U.S. households.

 

The Obamacare tax (as the Supreme Court ruled it was) pays for mandatory comprehensive policies that don't fully meet the requirements of the young (for example) but they are required to purchase them anyway, as a way to increase the risk pool for the older baby boomers. Obamacare specifically forbids altering coverage plans to suit the needs of the insured in such a way, so we can't use that to cut the cost of coverage for the $90,000 recipients.

 

Congress is looking to tap into the subsidies for the higher income recipients to avoid the fiscal cliff - if the middle class (such as me, and possibly you) no longer see any benefits to Obamacare, what then?

[Basementdweller]

Lots of things run business out of the country.....It is safer to be an employee here. There are work place safety rules, There are EPA rules, There are product safety rules, there is a minimum wage.

 

 

 

As a result it cost more to make things here.

 

 

The health care is out of control in this country...

 

Like it or not something has to give.

 

Finally, I don't want to work at a place that simply views me as an expense.

[fred johnson]

Obamacare ... I don't significantly understand the law or how it will affect things. But..

 

- I like that pre-existing conditions are OUT. Too many people have a family member with pre-existing conditions and this affects many.

 

- I once calculated the tax penalty for not purchasing health insurance. From what I saw, few would pay the penalty for not purchasing insurance because the cost of insurance is so great compared to income. So the individual mandate seems to be almost a none issue. Yeah, it's a tax. But is anyone hit by it? At the time I did the calculation, I worked a company that allowed employees to purchase health care, but the cost for my family was $1800 per month.

 

- I did work at a company (much larger than 50 people) that was considering dumping their health coverage and paying the penalty. The decision is waiting for 2014. But for them, it might be cheaper to pay the tax penalty then to provide insurance. Plus, the insurance might be better and it simplifies their company HR admin.

 

- I think the current Obamacare is dysfunction. BUT ... it's a neccessary step. I view it like the fiscal cliff we are in. President signed a budget bill hoping to get improvements later and now might be stuck. Same with Obamacare. I think it was signed with the plan that further legislation will fix the problems. I doubt a political consensus can be made to fix it now. But it is better then nothing.(This message has been edited by fred johnson)

[fred johnson]

Obamacare eligibility ... Had to read on it. Still don't understand.

 

I have noticed my son being able to easily land multiple 20+ hour a week jobs, but zero opportunity for a 30+ hour a week job. IMHO, this is a result of well meaning government laws on "who" is a full time employee and "who" is eligible for benefits. Full-time versus part-time is a result of broken governmental laws. I see Obamacare only exacerbating this. Fifty years ago, you could take a basic job and do it as a full time. Now, companies want to staff to avoid having "full time" employees and employees have to take multiple part-time jobs that are cumulatively "full time" but don't qualify for any benefits.

 

IMHO, that's a broken situation, a result of government laws and an example of a non-free market.

 

Republicans should jump on a national health care bandwagon. Get it out of business so that businesses can succeed. Right now, it's a strangle hold on the economy.(This message has been edited by fred johnson)

[OldGreyEagle]

Its been how long since Obamacare was passed? And during the elections Romeny said he would repeal Obamacare, and I kept waiting for the second part, I will replace Obamacare with Romneycare and its better because...

 

And nothing save the crickets chirping in the still of the night

 

Health Care financing could not be more convoluted if we tried to make it the most covoluted system. Soemthing needed to be done. Obamacare is not the answer, but then again, you can't keep on saying something sucks and then have no alternative

[packsaddle]

"Republicans should jump on a national healthcare bandwagon..."

Fred, at one time they DID advocate for such a plan. The following is from Richard Nixon - 1974:

"Without adequate health care, no one can make full use of his or her talents and opportunities. It is thus just as important that economic, racial and social barriers not stand in the way of good health care as it is to eliminate those barriers to a good education and a good job.

Even though more Americans carry health insurance than ever before, the 25 million Americans who remain uninsured often need it the most and are most unlikely to obtain it. They include many who work in seasonal or transient occupations, high-risk cases, and those who are ineligible for Medicaid despite low incomes.

The comprehensive health insurance plan would offer to every American the same broad and balanced health protection. The benefits offered by the three plans would be identical for all Americans, regardless of age or income. There would be no exclusions of coverage based on the nature of the illness.

In addition, the plan would cover treatment for mental illness, alcoholism and drug addiction, whether that treatment were provided in hospitals and physicians' offices or in community based settings.

 

Certain nursing home services and other convalescent services would also be covered. For example, home health services would be covered so that long and costly stays in nursing homes could be averted where possible.

 

The health needs of children would come in for special attention, since many conditions, if detected in childhood, can be prevented from causing lifelong disability and learning handicaps. Included in these services for children would be:

--preventive care up to age six;

--eye examinations;

--hearing examinations; and,

--regular dental care up to age 13.

 

Under the plan, a doctor's decisions could be based on the health care needs of his patients, not on health insurance coverage. This difference is essential for quality care.

Every American participating in the program would be insured for catastrophic illnesses that can eat away savings and plunge individuals and families into hopeless debt for years. No family would ever have annual out-of-pocket expenses for covered health services in excess of $1,500, and low-income families would face substantially smaller expenses.

 

As part of this program, every American who participates in the program would receive a Health-card when the plan goes into effect in his State. This card, similar to a credit card, would be honored by hospitals, nursing homes, emergency rooms, doctors, and clinics across the country.

 

Every employer would be required to offer all full-time employees the insurance plan. Additional benefits could then be added by mutual agreement.

Comprehensive health insurance is an idea whose time has come in America.

 

There has long been a need to assure every American financial access to high quality health care. As medical costs go up, that need grows more pressing. The plan proposed today is, I believe, the very best way."

 

So Fred, this is one more example for you to put into your collection of flip flops the parties have done over the years.

And, as I'm fond of repeating (thanks, Jon Stewart), it is also evidence that Richard Nixon...was a Communist.

 

(perhaps in comparison to the core Republican values of today)

[fred johnson]

Ya know... I hate quoting Nixon. You instantly lose credibility with anyone who's partially informed.

 

People unfairly associate Nixon with Vietnam, extreme right wing positions, corruption, etc. Now, you can legitimately associate Nixon with vulgarity, dirty tricks, paranoia and plenty of other things. But he was not a bad president. In fact, if not for Watergate, he would be up on the list of very good presidents. We still benefit from Nixon supporting / creating the EPA, OSHA and many other good things. But sort of like the Kennedys assassination cemented his greatness, Nixon's Watergate torpedoed his legacy.

 

Read a Vietnam timeline on Nixons involvement. It reads very much like Obamas Iraq / Afghanistan history. Troop reductions. Peace talks. Pull outs. Nixon bombed Viet Cog supply routes in Cambodia, but Obama did secret missions to assassinate top terrorists including Osama Bin Laden.

 

Nixon inherited a huge mess that involved our soldiers fighting in Southeast Asia. The simple importance of Nixon visiting China could not be understated. Heck, that itself probably helped prevent WWIII. I never realized the importance before. The Pentagon Papers documented that the number one reason we were fighting in Vietnam was to avoid a humiliating loss. But, Nixon was able to humble the Presidency to go visit China. That was huge back then and controversial.

 

I hate doing this, but as far as health care, Nixon had it right. He also was an ERA supporter. As president, he worked to desegregate schools and implemented the Philadelphia Plan, the first significant affirmative action program. He approved the Apollo-Soyuz mission, a very important part of improving relations with the USSR.

 

But I still hate quoting Nixon.

[AZMike]

"Nixon: In Your Heart, You Know He's Right."

 

Nixon's health care plan was actually quite good, because it allowed for far more flexibility on the part of employers than Obamacare, and was a market-based program. There was less partisanship and more importantly, a very different economy. Everything is context.

[fred johnson]

Since my Nixon affinity has been exposed .... I read a book a long time ago that I was quoting passages of when George Bush junior was gearing up for our entry into Iraq. I fully believe Nixon's book "No More Vietnam's" had strong insight that directly applied to Iraq. The book applied to analyzing the justification (weapons of mass destruction) and planning an exit stratagy. I remember when Iraq was gearing up saying the justification was just not there and looked very flaky. Also, it was obvious when you enter into war with a country like Iraq, you better know your exit strategy or you will be there for years and years. George junior's failure was hiring too many past administration retreaded yes men and not being critical of what he was being told.

 

Great book .... http://www.amazon.com/No-More-Vietnams-Richard-Nixon/dp/0380701197

(This message has been edited by fred johnson)

[packsaddle]

"In your heart, you know he's right" is actually a campaign slogan from the Goldwater campaign against Johnson. Evidently, it didn't resonate.

Fred, I voted for Nixon. I do recognize that he did a lot of good things and if not for the delusional paranoia in an ethical netherworld, he would might have been one of the greatest. Sigh.

[OldGreyEagle]

In his heart LBJ knew ol' Barry was right, because almost as soon as LBJ was elected, LBJ did what Barry said he would do, and was not elected because he said it

 

AUH20, loved it!

[Woapalanne]

You are correct, Goldwater was right on all points. His book "Conscience of a Conservative" should be required reading for all politicians.

 

On the same point: by today's Democrat standards, JFK was an extreme right-winger!

[WasE61]

 

"On the same point: by today's Democrat standards, JFK was an extreme right-winger!"

 

JFK was an extreme right-winger compared to today's Republicans!

[Woapalanne]

"JFK was an extreme right-winger compared to today's Republicans! "

 

Gonna have to disagree with that one. Today's Republicans have taken a hard left turn (that's when I left them), but not that far!!