Universal Health care: What does it mean for us a citizens?
-
StangerBanger96;304084 wrote:
AMA = basically a union. Good ol unions at work again to screw everyone else over.Not going to disagree on this for the most part. Though someone asked WHY there weren't enough Doctors, I gave the answer. It's because THEY (or their board/union) limits the amount that can go on to med school. So they did it to themselves. Can't blame anyone other than the AMA and the Doctors in it for that.
-
Sorry I got a bit testy.
The bill is going to negatively impact a lot of people, me included. The details of exactly how haven't been worked out yet. I'm actually writing a mail to our HR people asking what their timeframe is for announcing how this is going to affect US employees. THey probably haven't worked that out yet fully. Part of it is figuring out in precise detail what the final bill says and when that comes into full force [different parts happen at different times], and how my company will decide to respond.
In broad strokes, the bill says that I don't get to keep my current insurance without someone [either me or my employer] paying a big penalty. Neither me nor my employer are going to be thrilled to pay, and irrespective of which party pays some or all of it, that means less money to do other things, and some attendant financial adjustments.
The bill also says that part of the funding for the new benefits being given to other people will come from a new tax on my investment activity. Capital gains will now be subject to medicare taxes, and the effective cap gains rates will be going up.
My company compenstates me in a variety of ways: fantastic medical benefits being one of them, and issuance of company stock in a variety of ways being several more. All of this is going to change for the worse as a result of the health care bill.
My salary doesn't put me in the "250k" range (or is it "200k" now?) or whatever Obama was promising would be the starting line for "Sticking it to the rich", and just like i told you leading up the election, I'm going to get fucked by this even though i make nowhere near that much.
And just like I told you 2 year ago, his anti-investment mentality is one place I'll probably feel it most.
I've been contributing to my company stock purchase plan and receiving other stock based assets, and holding my positions in the stock market since I entered the full-time workforce over 10 years ago. As the tax rules change for the wose, I'm going to need to re-evaluate that.
This bill sucks. It doesn't give Obama supporters what they wanted, Obama has reneged on every promise he made about taxes and health care and openness to get this bill to happen, and it certainly doesn't benefit ME at all. The most likely outcome is that it materially damages me to the tune of thousands of dollars a year.
How can I be happy about that? No, thousands of dollars of my money simply evaporating hopefully isn't the end of the world for me, but it might be for some people. Hopefully it is the end of the world for Obama and the congress that passed this horseshit.
The unresolved abortion situation is going to need some more light shed on it. I told my wife the bill passed and all she asked about was if it provided for abortion funding. My wife told me she was willing to become a tax protester over the abortion issue. She generally isn't onboard with me becoming a radical but for that issue, she is. It remains to be seen how that pans out, but the bill doesnt' have the Hyde or Stupak language in it. To get anti-abortion guarantees, they're depending on Obama to sign an EO that somehow limits it. Obama is the most pro-Abortion president we've ever had, based on his previous voting history, and any EO can be overturned at any time by this or any future president. So it's looking pretty marginal at this point.
I know a fair number of people at work who are pretty fucking irate over this. Consider what that means. These are high earners with families and mortgages and kids and everything to lose, honestly. And they're starting to talk in the same language that I am. They're pissed off at the government. They want OUT of the federal machine. They DONT like what is happening.
What do you think is going to happen if this reaches a boil? When affluent conservatives and libertarians decide to revolt, do you think they're going to light dumpsters on fire? Or throw bricks through store windows?
I don't think this problem is something an election or a repeal can fix. The red/blue schism in this country is coming to a head and I know which side is better armed and I know how the professional armed forces vote in elections.
-
thrash;304096 wrote:
To get anti-abortion guarantees, they're depending on Obama to sign an EO that somehow limits it. Obama is the most pro-Abortion president we've ever had, based on his previous voting history, and any EO can be overturned at any time by this or any future president. So it's looking pretty marginal at this point.So which has more weight, Congressional Law or EO?
-
thrash;304096 wrote:
Sorry I got a bit testy.The bill is going to negatively impact a lot of people, me included. The details of exactly how haven't been worked out yet. I'm actually writing a mail to our HR people asking what their timeframe is for announcing how this is going to affect US employees. THey probably haven't worked that out yet fully. Part of it is figuring out in precise detail what the final bill says and when that comes into full force [different parts happen at different times], and how my company will decide to respond.
In broad strokes, the bill says that I don't get to keep my current insurance without someone [either me or my employer] paying a big penalty. Neither me nor my employer are going to be thrilled to pay, and irrespective of which party pays some or all of it, that means less money to do other things, and some attendant financial adjustments.
The bill also says that part of the funding for the new benefits being given to other people will come from a new tax on my investment activity. Capital gains will now be subject to medicare taxes, and the effective cap gains rates will be going up.
My company compenstates me in a variety of ways: fantastic medical benefits being one of them, and issuance of company stock in a variety of ways being several more. All of this is going to change for the worse as a result of the health care bill.
My salary doesn't put me in the "250k" range (or is it "200k" now?) or whatever Obama was promising would be the starting line for "Sticking it to the rich", and just like i told you leading up the election, I'm going to get fucked by this even though i make nowhere near that much.
And just like I told you 2 year ago, his anti-investment mentality is one place I'll probably feel it most.
I've been contributing to my company stock purchase plan and receiving other stock based assets, and holding my positions in the stock market since I entered the full-time workforce over 10 years ago. As the tax rules change for the wose, I'm going to need to re-evaluate that.
This bill sucks. It doesn't give Obama supporters what they wanted, Obama has reneged on every promise he made about taxes and health care and openness to get this bill to happen, and it certainly doesn't benefit ME at all. The most likely outcome is that it materially damages me to the tune of thousands of dollars a year.
How can I be happy about that? No, thousands of dollars of my money simply evaporating hopefully isn't the end of the world for me, but it might be for some people. Hopefully it is the end of the world for Obama and the congress that passed this horseshit.
The unresolved abortion situation is going to need some more light shed on it. I told my wife the bill passed and all she asked about was if it provided for abortion funding. My wife told me she was willing to become a tax protester over the abortion issue. She generally isn't onboard with me becoming a radical but for that issue, she is. It remains to be seen how that pans out, but the bill doesnt' have the Hyde or Stupak language in it. To get anti-abortion guarantees, they're depending on Obama to sign an EO that somehow limits it. Obama is the most pro-Abortion president we've ever had, based on his previous voting history, and any EO can be overturned at any time by this or any future president. So it's looking pretty marginal at this point.
I know a fair number of people at work who are pretty fucking irate over this. Consider what that means. These are high earners with families and mortgages and kids and everything to lose, honestly. And they're starting to talk in the same language that I am. They're pissed off at the government. They want OUT of the federal machine. They DONT like what is happening.
What do you think is going to happen if this reaches a boil? When affluent conservatives and libertarians decide to revolt, do you think they're going to light dumpsters on fire? Or throw bricks through store windows?I don't think this problem is something an election or a repeal can fix. The red/blue schism in this country is coming to a head and I know which side is better armed and I know how the professional armed forces vote in elections.
Indeed... This bill has brought the political fury out of individuals who in the past, have not been so voiced. To me, that is reason to believe this shit wont fly for long
I for one HAVE NEVER been one to debate politically or get caught up in this kind of crap... But when its something as radical as this, I just cant help my self..it has obviously put the extreme right wingers over the edge, but also the independents/people who choose to be logical over affiliation with a party...
I just dont think this is going to fly.. I hope it doesnt.
-
Trafik Jamz;304094 wrote:
Not going to disagree on this for the most part. Though someone asked WHY there weren't enough Doctors, I gave the answer. It's because THEY (or their board/union) limits the amount that can go on to med school. So they did it to themselves. Can't blame anyone other than the AMA and the Doctors in it for that.It would be interesting to know if it's to keep the quality of the doctors high, or keep the demand for doctors high. I'm guessing the first...
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
StangerBanger96;304098 wrote:
So which has more weight, Congressional Law or EO?I'm not sure there is an easy answer to this question, and if there is, I don't know it.
Let me elaborate: the congress can choose not to fund something that is done by Executive Order (EO). The "scope" of things allowed by EO is supposedly narrow. The executive branch can choose not to "do" anything about a law passed by congress.
For instance, congress maintains that pot is illegal, but Obama (something I agree with him on) has said that the DEA and the Obama justice department will not be bringing charges against people who are complying with their state laws regarding marijuana. So in places where medical marijuana is legal, Obama isn't willing to enforce the existing federal laws [or so he says, anyway].
That's an example of the conflicting checks and balances between the congress and the president.
Another example would be the gold confiscation of 1933. FDR signed an executive order that called for the confiscation of all privately held gold in the US. It was later deemed unconstitutional. The next year congress passed a law that worked slightly differently that acheived the same effect. (incidentally, that law wasn't repealed until the late 70s. During most of your grandparents lifetime, it was illegal to own gold except as ornament or decoration. Private gold ownership was outlawed by FDR so that the dollar could be taken off the gold standard and replaced with Federal Reserve Notes.)
The point about EOs is that they cover a kind of broad and arbitrary jurisdiction. For those of us with commie guns that take commie rounds, the big appeal of these is that milsurp ammo is very affordable. But milsurp ammo is something that is imported, and trade agreements and import/export is something the president can affect via EO. It would be perfectly legal for Obama to write an EO that completely banned the import of ammunition from other countries. This could go into effect overnight and that would be that -- no law, no 2A challenge, no nothing, and suddenly gun owners are left out to dry.
Of course, he [or the next president] could rescind the order at any time, or the congress or the courts could use their available tools to overrule or nullify the EO. But that stuff takes time and a compliant/willing congress or judiciary.
-
I'm not disagreeing with you thrash. Can you please point me to some direct links that talk about this in more detail (I understand and trust you more than most others on here....I just want to be able to research it myself as well...can you point me in the right direction to get started?)
-
DaveH;304104 wrote:
It would be interesting to know if it's to keep the quality of the doctors high, or keep the demand for doctors high. I'm guessing the first...I'm sure that the plumbers in the plumbing licensure board tell you that plumbers have to get licensed to keep the quality of plumbers high.
And the electricians in the electricians board and union tell you that no matter how smart or stupid you are, you have to be a journeyman for xx years to keep the quality of electricians high.
And the lawyers at the ABA will tell you that were it not for state bar exams, the US would be flooded with incompetant lawyers. Thank goodness
Mandatory occupational licensure is always sold to the public as a means of protecting consumers. And it is always done at the behest of incumbents in that profession as a way of protecting their wages. No exceptions.
People realize that this is the game when we're talking about union machinists, but don't as often realize that it applies to lawyers and doctors just as well. At least the blue-collar unions are honest enough to not go around claiming that if you used non-union labor that bridges would fall over, etc.
Occupational licensure via state power is evil. There are still bad doctors that do bad things, and they get to keep their jobs, while hard working kids that want to do a better job and are happy to do it for less money get shut out.
I've read that more people apply to law schools in the US every year than there are currently practicing lawyers.
It's disgusting in a way; the law and lawyers are a tax on society; a necessary evil to keep productive people productive. What does it say when the parasites dominate the host organism?
-
Trafik Jamz;304075 wrote:
First...it's 50 employees.If I read the ammendment correctly, I "think" you might be right. I think it's saying that when a company is considered large is at 50 FTE, but when you calculate what the company is penalized if they don't provide health insurance, you reduce the number of FTE's by 30. The company gets penalized $2000 per employee, so if the company has 60 employees, you remove the first 30 which leaves you with 30 x $2000= $60,000.00 penalty. Pocket change...
http://docs.house.gov/rules/hr4872/111_hr4872_amndsub.pdf
[FONT=Times-Roman][SIZE=4][SIZE=2]10 [/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]**[FONT=NewCenturySchlbk-Bold]SEC. 1003. EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY.
**[/FONT][FONT=Times-Roman]11 [/FONT]FONT=DeVinne P[/FONT][FONT=DeVinne]AYMENT [/FONT][FONT=DeVinne]C[/FONT][FONT=DeVinne]ALCULATION[/FONT][FONT=DeVinne].—Subparagraph (D) of
[/FONT][FONT=Times-Roman]12 [/FONT][FONT=DeVinne]subsection (d)(2) of section 4980H of the Internal Rev[/FONT][FONT=Times-Roman]13
[/FONT][FONT=DeVinne]enue Code of 1986, as added by section 1513 of the Pa[/FONT][FONT=Times-Roman]14
[/FONT][FONT=DeVinne]tient Protection and Affordable Care Act and amended by
[/FONT][FONT=Times-Roman]15 [/FONT][FONT=DeVinne]section 10106 of such Act, is amended to read as follows:
[/FONT][FONT=Times-Roman]16 [/FONT][FONT=DeVinne]‘‘(D) A[/FONT][FONT=DeVinne]PPLICATION OF EMPLOYER SIZE TO
[/FONT][FONT=Times-Roman]17 [/FONT][FONT=DeVinne]ASSESSABLE PENALTIES[/FONT][FONT=DeVinne].—
[/FONT][FONT=Times-Roman]18 [/FONT][FONT=DeVinne]‘‘(i) I[/FONT][FONT=DeVinne]N GENERAL[/FONT][FONT=DeVinne].—The number of in[/FONT]
[FONT=Times-Roman]19 [/FONT][FONT=DeVinne]dividuals employed by an applicable large
[/FONT][FONT=Times-Roman]20 [/FONT][FONT=DeVinne]employer as full-time employees during any
[/FONT][FONT=Times-Roman]21 [/FONT][FONT=DeVinne]month shall be reduced by 30 solely for
[/FONT][FONT=Times-Roman]22 [/FONT][FONT=DeVinne]purposes of calculating—
[/FONT][FONT=Times-Roman]23 [/FONT][FONT=DeVinne]‘‘(I) the assessable payment
[/FONT][FONT=Times-Roman]24 [/FONT][FONT=DeVinne]under subsection (a), or
[/FONT]DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
that would explain the confusion between the two numbers.
-
The reason I posed the question regarding EO vs Congressional laws was because I thought the answer was basically what you said, Thrash. Which makes it even more interesting then, because Congressional Law could trump the presidential EO regarding abortion, making what he "says" useless. Or it could be one of the ones that he "says" but doesn't enforce. IE He used tricky persuasion to buy votes (another point to note, this is hearsay on my part, but supposedly Stupak got some additional money in some last minute additions to the bill too when he suddenly changed from NO to YES). So either Stupak is stupid enough to believe that an EO even MATTERS when Congress already has a law stating abortion funding could be legal, or he was paid off.
-
however, contractors affect the count "sometimes"
Anyone who works more than 120 hours a month for a company, for purposes of counting employees to determine if it is a "large company" or not counts as an employee.
i haven't found an accurate summary of the final bill language that i like yet so thus i haven't provided a link in direct response to requests for one.
the following site has a side-by-side of the house and senate versions, showing diffs. But it is very long; i'd never get through all of it and keep my job / sanity.
http://hcr.propublica.org/document/show/1.html
DaveH;304117 wrote:
If I read the ammendment correctly, I "think" you might be right. I think it's saying that when a company is considered large is at 50 FTE, but when you calculate what the company is penalized if they don't provide health insurance, you reduce the number of FTE's by 30. The company gets penalized $2000 per employee, so if the company has 60 employees, you remove the first 30 which leaves you with 30 x $2000= $60,000.00 penalty. Pocket change... -
Yeah, I was reading about part time workers and contractors and how they play into the mix. It was giving me a headache trying to figure it out and I gave up.
thrash;304126 wrote:
however, contractors affect the count "sometimes"Anyone who works more than 120 hours a month for a company, for purposes of counting employees to determine if it is a "large company" or not counts as an employee.
i haven't found an accurate summary of the final bill language that i like yet so thus i haven't provided a link in direct response to requests for one.
the following site has a side-by-side of the house and senate versions, showing diffs. But it is very long; i'd never get through all of it and keep my job / sanity.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Lol
"Thats a big fucking deal"
http://celebrifi.com/gossip/Biden-Calls-Health-Care-Bill-a-Big-Fucking-Deal-1942206.html
-
Does anyone think anything beneficial can come of this?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/23/health.care.lawsuit/?hpt=T1On the topic of the "affluent vs poor" point, I find it interesting seeing who supports this bill, and why.
Many of the supporters (that I see) are bleeding heart liberals that cheated their way (or fell) into money. They're still operating on the mindset of "everyone deserves to win".
Many more of the supporters are layabouts who want something for nothing.Call me crazy, but I don't want something for nothing, I didn't even try to get unemployment when I was jobless for several months after college. I know a significant number of people who are as poor as I am who don't want this nonsense happening.
The problem is the way it's been sold. The new outcry should be: The product is significantly more expensive and less feature-rich than I was lead to believe, I'd like to rescind my agreement to purchase.
-
out there;304240 wrote:
Does anyone think anything beneficial can come of this?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/23/health.care.lawsuit/?hpt=T1On the topic of the "affluent vs poor" point, I find it interesting seeing who supports this bill, and why.
Many of the supporters (that I see) are bleeding heart liberals that cheated their way (or fell) into money. They're still operating on the mindset of "everyone deserves to win".
Many more of the supporters are layabouts who want something for nothing.Call me crazy, but I don't want something for nothing, I didn't even try to get unemployment when I was jobless for several months after college. I know a significant number of people who are as poor as I am who don't want this nonsense happening.
The problem is the way it's been sold. The new outcry should be: The product is significantly more expensive and less feature-rich than I was lead to believe, I'd like to rescind my agreement to purchase.
*Caugh celebs/actors/general media
Much respect man... Glad to see some people think everything isnt free
-
On the AMA issue, yes there is a gray area in tems of demand for doctors vs. quality of the doctors. However there is a need for that type of thing otherwise someone with palsey could try to be a surgeon, extreme example but the principle is right there. When a group of professionals get together and start working to better the future of their chosen field, be it doctors or lawyers or electricians, you kind of have to expect they know what they are talking about. Could such an organization be abused? Of course and in the past some have been, but I'm pretty sure the AMA is on the up and up. Maybe they just have me fooled.
> Mitch Hedberg wrote:
> I'm sick of following my dreams, I'm just going to find out where they are going and hook up with them later.ASE certified parts specialist.
2004 Impala LS 3.8 -
capitlj;304290 wrote:
On the AMA issue, yes there is a gray area in tems of demand for doctors vs. quality of the doctors. However there is a need for that type of thing otherwise
someone with palsey could try to be a surgeon,Yeah, luckily there is no such thing as medical malpractice now. err wait.
When a group of professionals get together and start working to better the future of their chosen field
I think this is a great thing for people to do.
Where we part ways is that invariably these "professionals" work together to make occupational licensure a mandatory thing backed by the power of government. Remember, the government gets to shoot you if you decide you want to do a little plumbing on the side and they say differently.
be it doctors or lawyers or electricians, you kind of have to expect they know what they are talking about.
Nobody ever disputes that doctors are probably very well qualified to judge other doctors. But fewer readily admit the obvious conflict of interest.
Maybe they just have me fooled.
They do.
There is no reason to make it ILLEGAL to go see a doctor the AMA doesn't like, unless the AMA is trying to protect its wages.
You, personally, could decide that you'll only get treated by AMA doctors; your insurance could say that they will only re-imburse you for AMA providers; your primary physician may only write recommendations to other AMA physicians.
There can be any number of free-market mechanisms that "the people", both individually and aggregately, use to decide who is going to make a successful living at being a doctor.
Government licensure and certification is responsible for a lot of bad things. Private alternatives are better, and where they exist, are very successful.
The following are all private organizations that consumers turn to to figure out if something is "safe" or not:
- Consumer Reports
- IIHS.org
- Better HouseKeeping
- Better Busines Bureau
- CarFax
- Underwriters Laboritories
Those are a few. This forum is a form of consumer protection: everyone here is asking and answering questions about reliability, about if someone is a good seller, about people who take money and don't deliver parts, etc. I learned from this forum that certain people probably aren't going to build me a manifold in a reasonable timeframe.
You can read "Free to Choose", by Milton Friedman, to get a better argument for the inherent evil of occupational licensure. He's a smart guy -- Nobel prize winner, inventor of the modern IRS, economic advisor to Nixon and Reagan, turned the economy of a few south american countries around, did weapons testing for Uncle Sam in WW2.
I'll lend you the book if you like.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login