Universal Health care: What does it mean for us a citizens?
-
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.
-
One of the often overlooked "Pro's" to this healthcare bill is that Rush Limbaugh has stated that if it passes and everything is implemented he will move out of the country in 5 years and move to Costa Rica.....and you guys thought there was nothing good in this bill.....
-
thrash;304349 wrote:
Yeah, luckily there is no such thing as medical malpractice now. err wait.
Of course there is and always will be, they are human after all. Mistakes will be made and some will be just plain bad people but you can't judge an organization on the actions of certain individuals. Well actually you can but that's not exactly fair.
I forgot to mention that I agree with you completely on the fact that one organization and the government should not control any industry. However you if there were no controls malpractice would be a far more common issue. But if the organization is an advisory kind of thing, ASE for example, that might be better suited. I was trying to say something along those lines but my fingers get real sore typing on my blackberry, so I don't elaborate as much as I normally would. Also I might check that book out, not my usual type of read I like Tom Clancy and Robert Ludlum, but I need something to do while I'm on the throne.Chuck you really think that'll stop Rush from talking.
> 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 -
the total for defense spending in 2010 is between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion? thats about 40% of all tax revenue? is this true? i heard this today on the radio at a gas station.
if it is about right, why doesnt everyone who is not in favor of paying more for health care just ask that two soldiers are sent home instead. they dont even have to be from the stans they could be from one of the other thirty countries we have armed forces in.
-
I'd be all for evalutating if our military is too spread out and if they are bringing some home.
BUT, that does not mean I want the government to spend more money on this health insurance fiasco. How about we save money by bringing troops back AND not doing this health insurance BS?
24valvenotak;304398 wrote:
the total for defense spending in 2010 is between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion? thats about 40% of all tax revenue? is this true? i heard this today on the radio at a gas station.if it is about right, why doesnt everyone who is not in favor of paying more for health care just ask that two soldiers are sent home instead. they dont even have to be from the stans they could be from one of the other thirty countries we have armed forces in.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Strong Military > Poor People with Healthcare
I tend to lean to the authoritarian side though.
-
I heard some weenie on the radio yesterday morning. Essentially, he was saying that "individualism is the way of the past, the future is the community". Wow, I could just hear the "I'm so pathetic I can't even look at myself in the mirror" dripping from his voice.
What is happening to people? What happened to the "Yes, I can do that!" spirit that made this country the best industrialized nation? What happened to the country that was the first to reach the moon? What happened to the country that was the first to harness atomic power? Jefferson was right, the biggest threat to this nation isn't someone trying to conquer it, it's from inside.
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