Change is in the air

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Wickedheart]
Last I heard even though Obama wasn’t proposing to tax your health care benefits taxing them wasn’t off the table and he wasn’t going to oppose it either. The benefit is what candidate Obama refer to as “the largest tax middle-class tax increase in history.” Of course it’s going to pass the gov is in desperate need of a new source of revenue.[/quote]

Obama wants to tax Cadillac plans… luxury medical plans for executives.

I don’t see a problem with taxing medical benefits. They are part of compensation so they should be taxed like salary. Makes sense to me.[/quote]

Oh please, did you even read the fine print in what obama considered the Cadillac plans when it was originally written? Why did the unions oppose these taxes? Because a lot of those plans from those unions were considered cadillac plans. In fact a lot of employer sponsored plans would end up being cadillac plans. They are NOT just taxes on executives. It’s all a ruse. The bulk of the taxes are and will always be paid for by the upper middle class. Always has/always will.

Do you really think that someone like Steve Jobs, despite his cancer, really *needs* medical insurance?

[Coronita]

[quote=Wickedheart][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
To what end does this benefit anybody?[/quote]

Last I heard even though Obama wasn’t proposing to tax your health care benefits taxing them wasn’t off the table and he wasn’t going to oppose it either. The benefit is what candidate Obama refer to as “the largest tax middle-class tax increase in history.” Of course it’s going to pass the gov is in desperate need of a new source of revenue.[/quote]

There is one quick solution to not raising “taxes” and generating more revenue…Stop calling things taxes, and instead call them “fees”…Hell, take that one directly from the California government… We don’t have additional taxes, just a lot more fees that don’t require the 2/3 majority vote in Ca.

[Coronita]

[quote=Wickedheart][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
To what end does this benefit anybody?[/quote]

Last I heard even though Obama wasn’t proposing to tax your health care benefits taxing them wasn’t off the table and he wasn’t going to oppose it either. The benefit is what candidate Obama refer to as “the largest tax middle-class tax increase in history.” Of course it’s going to pass the gov is in desperate need of a new source of revenue.[/quote]

There is one quick solution to not raising “taxes” and generating more revenue…Stop calling things taxes, and instead call them “fees”…Hell, take that one directly from the California government… We don’t have additional taxes, just a lot more fees that don’t require the 2/3 majority vote in Ca.

[Coronita]

[quote=Wickedheart][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
To what end does this benefit anybody?[/quote]

Last I heard even though Obama wasn’t proposing to tax your health care benefits taxing them wasn’t off the table and he wasn’t going to oppose it either. The benefit is what candidate Obama refer to as “the largest tax middle-class tax increase in history.” Of course it’s going to pass the gov is in desperate need of a new source of revenue.[/quote]

There is one quick solution to not raising “taxes” and generating more revenue…Stop calling things taxes, and instead call them “fees”…Hell, take that one directly from the California government… We don’t have additional taxes, just a lot more fees that don’t require the 2/3 majority vote in Ca.

[Coronita]

[quote=Wickedheart][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
To what end does this benefit anybody?[/quote]

Last I heard even though Obama wasn’t proposing to tax your health care benefits taxing them wasn’t off the table and he wasn’t going to oppose it either. The benefit is what candidate Obama refer to as “the largest tax middle-class tax increase in history.” Of course it’s going to pass the gov is in desperate need of a new source of revenue.[/quote]

There is one quick solution to not raising “taxes” and generating more revenue…Stop calling things taxes, and instead call them “fees”…Hell, take that one directly from the California government… We don’t have additional taxes, just a lot more fees that don’t require the 2/3 majority vote in Ca.

[Coronita]

[quote=Wickedheart][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
To what end does this benefit anybody?[/quote]

Last I heard even though Obama wasn’t proposing to tax your health care benefits taxing them wasn’t off the table and he wasn’t going to oppose it either. The benefit is what candidate Obama refer to as “the largest tax middle-class tax increase in history.” Of course it’s going to pass the gov is in desperate need of a new source of revenue.[/quote]

There is one quick solution to not raising “taxes” and generating more revenue…Stop calling things taxes, and instead call them “fees”…Hell, take that one directly from the California government… We don’t have additional taxes, just a lot more fees that don’t require the 2/3 majority vote in Ca.

[danielwis]

The 60 vote threshold is ridiculous.

But for arguments sake, say you are a rules purist, as many Republicans now claim to be. Reconciliation is not a “trick” as Fox News is now calling it. It is a recognized Senate procedure: it is a “rule”, that has been used many many times, and mostly by Republicans.

Furthermore, when Republican’s have used it, they used as the initial means of passing a bill. They never “first” met the 60 vote threshold in the Senate, as this health care bill has. They went straight to reconciliation as option one. Now I have no argument with that approach. The Democrats should have done the same thing.

But they did not. The Democrats went the traditional way, and crafted a bill that met the 60 vote threshold. In all this “talk”, remember that we have a Senate Bill BECAUSE it met the 60 vote threshold. The process we are talking about NOW is not to pass a “new” health care bill via reconciliation (step one in the Republican model). It is to take the House bill, and the Senate bill, and reconcile the differences between the two. The Democrats used the “traditional” approach to passing a bill from step one, something the Republican’s did not do when they used reconciliation.

Hugely different than what the Republicans did.

[danielwis]

The 60 vote threshold is ridiculous.

But for arguments sake, say you are a rules purist, as many Republicans now claim to be. Reconciliation is not a “trick” as Fox News is now calling it. It is a recognized Senate procedure: it is a “rule”, that has been used many many times, and mostly by Republicans.

Furthermore, when Republican’s have used it, they used as the initial means of passing a bill. They never “first” met the 60 vote threshold in the Senate, as this health care bill has. They went straight to reconciliation as option one. Now I have no argument with that approach. The Democrats should have done the same thing.

But they did not. The Democrats went the traditional way, and crafted a bill that met the 60 vote threshold. In all this “talk”, remember that we have a Senate Bill BECAUSE it met the 60 vote threshold. The process we are talking about NOW is not to pass a “new” health care bill via reconciliation (step one in the Republican model). It is to take the House bill, and the Senate bill, and reconcile the differences between the two. The Democrats used the “traditional” approach to passing a bill from step one, something the Republican’s did not do when they used reconciliation.

Hugely different than what the Republicans did.

[danielwis]

The 60 vote threshold is ridiculous.

But for arguments sake, say you are a rules purist, as many Republicans now claim to be. Reconciliation is not a “trick” as Fox News is now calling it. It is a recognized Senate procedure: it is a “rule”, that has been used many many times, and mostly by Republicans.

Furthermore, when Republican’s have used it, they used as the initial means of passing a bill. They never “first” met the 60 vote threshold in the Senate, as this health care bill has. They went straight to reconciliation as option one. Now I have no argument with that approach. The Democrats should have done the same thing.

But they did not. The Democrats went the traditional way, and crafted a bill that met the 60 vote threshold. In all this “talk”, remember that we have a Senate Bill BECAUSE it met the 60 vote threshold. The process we are talking about NOW is not to pass a “new” health care bill via reconciliation (step one in the Republican model). It is to take the House bill, and the Senate bill, and reconcile the differences between the two. The Democrats used the “traditional” approach to passing a bill from step one, something the Republican’s did not do when they used reconciliation.

Hugely different than what the Republicans did.

[danielwis]

The 60 vote threshold is ridiculous.

But for arguments sake, say you are a rules purist, as many Republicans now claim to be. Reconciliation is not a “trick” as Fox News is now calling it. It is a recognized Senate procedure: it is a “rule”, that has been used many many times, and mostly by Republicans.

Furthermore, when Republican’s have used it, they used as the initial means of passing a bill. They never “first” met the 60 vote threshold in the Senate, as this health care bill has. They went straight to reconciliation as option one. Now I have no argument with that approach. The Democrats should have done the same thing.

But they did not. The Democrats went the traditional way, and crafted a bill that met the 60 vote threshold. In all this “talk”, remember that we have a Senate Bill BECAUSE it met the 60 vote threshold. The process we are talking about NOW is not to pass a “new” health care bill via reconciliation (step one in the Republican model). It is to take the House bill, and the Senate bill, and reconcile the differences between the two. The Democrats used the “traditional” approach to passing a bill from step one, something the Republican’s did not do when they used reconciliation.

Hugely different than what the Republicans did.

[danielwis]

The 60 vote threshold is ridiculous.

But for arguments sake, say you are a rules purist, as many Republicans now claim to be. Reconciliation is not a “trick” as Fox News is now calling it. It is a recognized Senate procedure: it is a “rule”, that has been used many many times, and mostly by Republicans.

Furthermore, when Republican’s have used it, they used as the initial means of passing a bill. They never “first” met the 60 vote threshold in the Senate, as this health care bill has. They went straight to reconciliation as option one. Now I have no argument with that approach. The Democrats should have done the same thing.

But they did not. The Democrats went the traditional way, and crafted a bill that met the 60 vote threshold. In all this “talk”, remember that we have a Senate Bill BECAUSE it met the 60 vote threshold. The process we are talking about NOW is not to pass a “new” health care bill via reconciliation (step one in the Republican model). It is to take the House bill, and the Senate bill, and reconcile the differences between the two. The Democrats used the “traditional” approach to passing a bill from step one, something the Republican’s did not do when they used reconciliation.

Hugely different than what the Republicans did.

[LA Reader]

[quote=
So let me try again:
If the ones without coverage today and cannot afford coverage today, how does this bill make it more affordable in the future?[/quote]

It doesn’t now that everything that would’ve made it cheaper was taken out by “Moderate Democrats”.

It’s a huge Hand out bill to the insurance industry. Taking Tax dollar and requiring everyone to have insurance. The reform made sense when it contained public option to force insurance company to compete against cheaper alternative. But now this bill would deliver additional 30 million customers to insurance companies and allow them to charge them whatever they want.

In the end, true health care reform will only happen when the cost becomes so large that even large corporations and government have to drop medical insurance as part of benefit package.

Meanwhile, people like me who has to buy my insurance in indivisual market will continue to face price increase of 25% to 40% every year, reduced coverage and constant fear of being dropped whenever we get seriously sick or injured. I do not go to doctors since every little visit will be counted against my premium increase for the future or step towards becoming un-insurable. I tried changing my insurance a year ago and I gave up when the new insurance company gave me a 30 page document to get my medical history. They asked for specific dates of doctors visits, reason, any medication taken and specific amounts of each medication and dates taken for the past 5 years. It was asked in a such a specific way that unless you’ve been keeping a special medical journal or excel sheet of every visit and every medicine you’ve taken, there was no way for a person to not make a mistake. And we all know any mistake on those is an excuse for them to drop you when you get sick.

Can you remember the dates of every doctors visit for last 5 years and how many milligrams of each medication you have taken?

And why is insurance company exempt from Anti-trust laws?

At this point I want to start a movement to take health care benefits away from all federal and local government employees.

Hey, why not? They should do just fine in Indivisual market as long as HSA accounts gets expanded right? If it’s good enough for me, it should be good enough for government employees.

We want small government, right? I’m sure this would help a lot to reduce federal & local government budget deficit.

Oh by the way, I pay Taxes on my Insurance cost so why is it big deal to tax employer provided insurance?

[LA Reader]

[quote=
So let me try again:
If the ones without coverage today and cannot afford coverage today, how does this bill make it more affordable in the future?[/quote]

It doesn’t now that everything that would’ve made it cheaper was taken out by “Moderate Democrats”.

It’s a huge Hand out bill to the insurance industry. Taking Tax dollar and requiring everyone to have insurance. The reform made sense when it contained public option to force insurance company to compete against cheaper alternative. But now this bill would deliver additional 30 million customers to insurance companies and allow them to charge them whatever they want.

In the end, true health care reform will only happen when the cost becomes so large that even large corporations and government have to drop medical insurance as part of benefit package.

Meanwhile, people like me who has to buy my insurance in indivisual market will continue to face price increase of 25% to 40% every year, reduced coverage and constant fear of being dropped whenever we get seriously sick or injured. I do not go to doctors since every little visit will be counted against my premium increase for the future or step towards becoming un-insurable. I tried changing my insurance a year ago and I gave up when the new insurance company gave me a 30 page document to get my medical history. They asked for specific dates of doctors visits, reason, any medication taken and specific amounts of each medication and dates taken for the past 5 years. It was asked in a such a specific way that unless you’ve been keeping a special medical journal or excel sheet of every visit and every medicine you’ve taken, there was no way for a person to not make a mistake. And we all know any mistake on those is an excuse for them to drop you when you get sick.

Can you remember the dates of every doctors visit for last 5 years and how many milligrams of each medication you have taken?

And why is insurance company exempt from Anti-trust laws?

At this point I want to start a movement to take health care benefits away from all federal and local government employees.

Hey, why not? They should do just fine in Indivisual market as long as HSA accounts gets expanded right? If it’s good enough for me, it should be good enough for government employees.

We want small government, right? I’m sure this would help a lot to reduce federal & local government budget deficit.

Oh by the way, I pay Taxes on my Insurance cost so why is it big deal to tax employer provided insurance?

[LA Reader]

[quote=
So let me try again:
If the ones without coverage today and cannot afford coverage today, how does this bill make it more affordable in the future?[/quote]

It doesn’t now that everything that would’ve made it cheaper was taken out by “Moderate Democrats”.

It’s a huge Hand out bill to the insurance industry. Taking Tax dollar and requiring everyone to have insurance. The reform made sense when it contained public option to force insurance company to compete against cheaper alternative. But now this bill would deliver additional 30 million customers to insurance companies and allow them to charge them whatever they want.

In the end, true health care reform will only happen when the cost becomes so large that even large corporations and government have to drop medical insurance as part of benefit package.

Meanwhile, people like me who has to buy my insurance in indivisual market will continue to face price increase of 25% to 40% every year, reduced coverage and constant fear of being dropped whenever we get seriously sick or injured. I do not go to doctors since every little visit will be counted against my premium increase for the future or step towards becoming un-insurable. I tried changing my insurance a year ago and I gave up when the new insurance company gave me a 30 page document to get my medical history. They asked for specific dates of doctors visits, reason, any medication taken and specific amounts of each medication and dates taken for the past 5 years. It was asked in a such a specific way that unless you’ve been keeping a special medical journal or excel sheet of every visit and every medicine you’ve taken, there was no way for a person to not make a mistake. And we all know any mistake on those is an excuse for them to drop you when you get sick.

Can you remember the dates of every doctors visit for last 5 years and how many milligrams of each medication you have taken?

And why is insurance company exempt from Anti-trust laws?

At this point I want to start a movement to take health care benefits away from all federal and local government employees.

Hey, why not? They should do just fine in Indivisual market as long as HSA accounts gets expanded right? If it’s good enough for me, it should be good enough for government employees.

We want small government, right? I’m sure this would help a lot to reduce federal & local government budget deficit.

Oh by the way, I pay Taxes on my Insurance cost so why is it big deal to tax employer provided insurance?

[LA Reader]

[quote=
So let me try again:
If the ones without coverage today and cannot afford coverage today, how does this bill make it more affordable in the future?[/quote]

It doesn’t now that everything that would’ve made it cheaper was taken out by “Moderate Democrats”.

It’s a huge Hand out bill to the insurance industry. Taking Tax dollar and requiring everyone to have insurance. The reform made sense when it contained public option to force insurance company to compete against cheaper alternative. But now this bill would deliver additional 30 million customers to insurance companies and allow them to charge them whatever they want.

In the end, true health care reform will only happen when the cost becomes so large that even large corporations and government have to drop medical insurance as part of benefit package.

Meanwhile, people like me who has to buy my insurance in indivisual market will continue to face price increase of 25% to 40% every year, reduced coverage and constant fear of being dropped whenever we get seriously sick or injured. I do not go to doctors since every little visit will be counted against my premium increase for the future or step towards becoming un-insurable. I tried changing my insurance a year ago and I gave up when the new insurance company gave me a 30 page document to get my medical history. They asked for specific dates of doctors visits, reason, any medication taken and specific amounts of each medication and dates taken for the past 5 years. It was asked in a such a specific way that unless you’ve been keeping a special medical journal or excel sheet of every visit and every medicine you’ve taken, there was no way for a person to not make a mistake. And we all know any mistake on those is an excuse for them to drop you when you get sick.

Can you remember the dates of every doctors visit for last 5 years and how many milligrams of each medication you have taken?

And why is insurance company exempt from Anti-trust laws?

At this point I want to start a movement to take health care benefits away from all federal and local government employees.

Hey, why not? They should do just fine in Indivisual market as long as HSA accounts gets expanded right? If it’s good enough for me, it should be good enough for government employees.

We want small government, right? I’m sure this would help a lot to reduce federal & local government budget deficit.

Oh by the way, I pay Taxes on my Insurance cost so why is it big deal to tax employer provided insurance?

[Author]

Posts