02-16-2014 07:38 AM
308 ... 7891011 ...
tools
  1. GadgetGator's Avatar
    How hard is it if the basic national policy covers all inpatient procedures and outpatient rehab? At least use an example that is more to the point. Person forgoes purchasing dental and they need a root canal (which happens all the time right now). Yeah, that's $500 whoops on their part.
    Why would you include certain things and exclude others? All this picking and choosing makes no sense. (And who decides that anyway and why are their decisions valid?) Why not make it simple and just cover everything?
    02-05-2014 03:18 PM
  2. nolittdroid's Avatar
    Why would you include certain things and exclude others? All this picking and choosing makes no sense. (And who decides that anyway and why are their decisions valid?) Why not make it simple and just cover everything?
    I think Congress is voting on a bill that will determine if abortion can be covered or not..routine mammograms for women will be next. According to one politician...women don't go to the gynecologist in their 50s.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    palandri likes this.
    02-05-2014 03:21 PM
  3. SteveISU's Avatar
    Why would you include certain things and exclude others? All this picking and choosing makes no sense. (And who decides that anyway and why are their decisions valid?) Why not make it simple and just cover everything?
    I hate to tell you but even in countries with socialized medicine, not everything is covered. Certain choices are made on what constitutes a comprehensive plan.

    But getting to your previous point on how people are to stupid to pick their own plan. If funny because I know you are a staunch supporter of our current administration and the ACA. So I ask you, what makes someone smart enough to go on the exchanges and pick their plan themselves and you think that's the greatest thing since slice bread but they couldn't do it with what I'm proposing?
    02-05-2014 03:27 PM
  4. nolittdroid's Avatar
    I hate to tell you but even in countries with socialized medicine, not everything is covered. Certain choices are made on what constitutes a comprehensive plan.

    But getting to your previous point on how people are to stupid to pick their own plan. If funny because I know you are a staunch supporter of our current administration and the ACA. So I ask you, what makes someone smart enough to go on the exchanges and pick their plan themselves and you think that's the greatest thing since slice bread but they couldn't do it with what I'm proposing?
    I don't really know exactly what you're proposing, but I do know that most people can understand what they're signing up for, and what isn't covered. In other countries, are your insurance coverage policies dictated by how much money a certain lobby group or political has? It's become a witch hunt on hormonal birth control and abortion, and too many people think they're entitled to an opinion when they have no clue how HBC works. Even in those countries you speak of(yet offer no example so I can't be sure), somehow I doubt they'd be so "morally/religiously offended" to the point of fighting it in in the White House because a) only sluts use birth control, b) women can't control their libidos, and c) it's a violation of a "corporation's rights" to provide adequate female coverage. My health care plan says hearing aids, hearing aid molds, and visits are cosmetic. If my hearing aid dies tomorrow, I have no way to be able to work, and I will be in the hole thousands of dollars if I want to replace it. I think things like this are a MUCH BIGGER concern than birth control. We need to keep people working and healthy, not pander the conservatives with excellent health care coverage.

    It's a really clever way to strip down the ACA, but its despicable. Maybe I'd consider their claims for a moment if they were trying to empower the law and make it better for the working class, instead of trying to ruin every good aspect of the ACA. I suppose if they can't use the benefits, they feel nobody should be able to...in that case if women can't access birth control or have a safe, legal abortion I don't want to hear a single conservative crying about their tax dollars, "welfare queens" and the families they support when they ignore statistics and science in favor of their political values.
    02-05-2014 08:13 PM
  5. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    I don't really know exactly what you're proposing, but I do know that most people can understand what they're signing up for, and what isn't covered. In other countries, are your insurance coverage policies dictated by how much money a certain lobby group or political has? It's become a witch hunt on hormonal birth control and abortion, and too many people think they're entitled to an opinion when they have no clue how HBC works. Even in those countries you speak of(yet offer no example so I can't be sure), somehow I doubt they'd be so "morally/religiously offended" to the point of fighting it in in the White House because a) only sluts use birth control, b) women can't control their libidos, and c) it's a violation of a "corporation's rights" to provide adequate female coverage. My health care plan says hearing aids, hearing aid molds, and visits are cosmetic. If my hearing aid dies tomorrow, I have no way to be able to work, and I will be in the hole thousands of dollars if I want to replace it. I think things like this are a MUCH BIGGER concern than birth control. We need to keep people working and healthy, not pander the conservatives with excellent health care coverage.

    It's a really clever way to strip down the ACA, but its despicable. Maybe I'd consider their claims for a moment if they were trying to empower the law and make it better for the working class, instead of trying to ruin every good aspect of the ACA. I suppose if they can't use the benefits, they feel nobody should be able to...in that case if women can't access birth control or have a safe, legal abortion I don't want to hear a single conservative crying about their tax dollars, "welfare queens" and the families they support when they ignore statistics and science in favor of their political values.
    When you provide things for people that they don't have to pay for, they give consequences and actions less or no consideration.

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    02-05-2014 08:43 PM
  6. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    How many people saw where the CBO projects over 2 million jobs to be lost over Obama Care? Not fox, CNN or MSNBC. The CBO.

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    02-05-2014 09:22 PM
  7. SteveISU's Avatar
    I don't really know exactly what you're proposing, but I do know that most people can understand what they're signing up for, and what isn't covered. In other countries, are your insurance coverage policies dictated by how much money a certain lobby group or political has? It's become a witch hunt on hormonal birth control and abortion, and too many people think they're entitled to an opinion when they have no clue how HBC works. Even in those countries you speak of(yet offer no example so I can't be sure), somehow I doubt they'd be so "morally/religiously offended" to the point of fighting it in in the White House because a) only sluts use birth control, b) women can't control their libidos, and c) it's a violation of a "corporation's rights" to provide adequate female coverage. My health care plan says hearing aids, hearing aid molds, and visits are cosmetic. If my hearing aid dies tomorrow, I have no way to be able to work, and I will be in the hole thousands of dollars if I want to replace it. I think things like this are a MUCH BIGGER concern than birth control. We need to keep people working and healthy, not pander the conservatives with excellent health care coverage.

    It's a really clever way to strip down the ACA, but its despicable. Maybe I'd consider their claims for a moment if they were trying to empower the law and make it better for the working class, instead of trying to ruin every good aspect of the ACA. I suppose if they can't use the benefits, they feel nobody should be able to...in that case if women can't access birth control or have a safe, legal abortion I don't want to hear a single conservative crying about their tax dollars, "welfare queens" and the families they support when they ignore statistics and science in favor of their political values.
    Scroll back and I've offered up plenty of ideas. I'm not sure why your so hung up on BC or abortion, I've not once mentioned it.

    Your insurance doesn't cover hearing aids, yet there are some that do. Some cover $500 an ear, $600 an ear, 80% once your out of pocket is met. So the question is, if hearing aid coverage is important for you, why not find a plan that covers them? Wouldn't that be the ideal CHOICE. Many are going the discount program route for their members. I understand your reliance on hearing aids, but the #1 reason why people who are hard of hearing don't get hearing aids isn't cost or insurance coverage. It's the fact that they don't think their hearing loss is significant enough to warrant wearing hearing aids. We know this because there have been numerous studies done in countries who provide hearing aids through their UHC and half with hearing loss don't get them, even though they are "free".

    You assume there are interest groups that have it out for deaf and hard of hearing people, it's a decision your state insurance regulators made on what mandates they force on insurance companies. I hate to break it to you but take out the special interests and all the evil people you think have their hands in it, go look at the holy grail of socialized medicine in this country that everyone points to and says "SEE" they're happy (ie....Medicare). Medicare doesn't cover hearing aids either. Some states have Public Aid paying $376 for a single hearing aid but you won't necessary like what you'll get. Lets not look beyond the fact that in order to pay for the ACA DME companies were going to be taxed, that included hearing aid manufactures. So they'd put a bigger portion of the burden on your back when Siemens passes that tax on down to you.
    02-05-2014 10:19 PM
  8. Aquila's Avatar
    How many people saw where the CBO projects over 2 million jobs to be lost over Obama Care? Not fox, CNN or MSNBC. The CBO.

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    That spin on the comments was debunked over 30 hours ago by almost every news source reporting on it as a misrepresentation of the analysis conducted and the conclusions reached. The claim the CBO is making is that workers may choose to reduce the amount of hours that they choose to work by a sum of hours the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs. It isn't a comment about the availability of jobs to those seeking employment at all.

    Here is the CBO release, the section receiving comments is on what is labeled as page 117, but it seems like the 124th page of the file: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/c...utlook2014.pdf

    Basically, the justification is that people who work and receive income that places them very close to the 400% of poverty line value (or less) may receive net more compensation by choosing to work part time, becoming eligible for subsidies on healthcare that may outweigh the differential in take-home pay they'd get from working an additional 8-10 or 12 hours per week. Those reductions would be voluntary on the employee's part, we're not talking about 2.5 layoffs, terminations or less jobs offered by employers.
    palandri and nolittdroid like this.
    02-05-2014 10:20 PM
  9. palandri's Avatar
    How many people saw where the CBO projects over 2 million jobs to be lost over Obama Care? Not fox, CNN or MSNBC. The CBO.

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    You misread that. It said the, "Obamacare to cut work hours by equivalent of 2 million jobs: CBO" Obamacare to cut work hours by equivalent of 2 million jobs: CBO | Reuters
    02-05-2014 10:22 PM
  10. palandri's Avatar
    When you provide things for people that they don't have to pay for, they give consequences and actions less or no consideration.

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    So you're saying it bad for me to signup for Secret Santa to help a family in need with Christmas presents for their kid?
    02-05-2014 10:25 PM
  11. SteveISU's Avatar
    That spin on the comments was debunked over 30 hours ago by almost every news source reporting on it as a misrepresentation of the analysis conducted and the conclusions reached. The claim the CBO is making is that workers may choose to reduce the amount of hours that they choose to work by a sum of hours the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs. It isn't a comment about the availability of jobs to those seeking employment at all.

    Here is the CBO release, the section receiving comments is on what is labeled as page 117, but it seems like the 124th page of the file: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/c...utlook2014.pdf

    Basically, the justification is that people who work and receive income that places them very close to the 400% of poverty line value (or less) may receive net more compensation by choosing to work part time, becoming eligible for subsidies on healthcare that may outweigh the differential in take-home pay they'd get from working an additional 8-10 or 12 hours per week. Those reductions would be voluntary on the employee's part, we're not talking about 2.5 layoffs, terminations or less jobs offered by employers.
    In layman's terms it disincentivize people to work. Does that make it much better?
    02-05-2014 10:29 PM
  12. Aquila's Avatar
    In layman's terms it disincentivize people to work. Is that much better?
    It's much better than employers not offering jobs to those seeking them as this mitigates some projected job loss to that category and may even create more job openings for those wanting to work. This is definitely far from ideal, but these are essentially impoverished workers anyways, and if working that extra 500-1000 hours a year is going to COST them money, rather than increasing their net income, then why should they do that? Hopefully they'll be wise and use that extra time to pursue ways to better their attractiveness to prospective employees and skills set so they can get a full time job that will allow them to cover their own insurance and net a profit with their extra labor. This isn't really a social commentary on the ACA, so much as the "living wage" discussion, although depending on your point of view, the ACA is either helping to solve or mitigate, or compounding the problems there.
    02-05-2014 10:36 PM
  13. SteveISU's Avatar
    It's much better than employers not offering jobs to those seeking them as this mitigates some projected job loss to that category and may even create more job openings for those wanting to work. This is definitely far from ideal, but these are essentially impoverished workers anyways, and if working that extra 500-1000 hours a year is going to COST them money, rather than increasing their net income, then why should they do that? Hopefully they'll be wise and use that extra time to pursue ways to better their attractiveness to prospective employees and skills set so they can get a full time job that will allow them to cover their own insurance and net a profit with their extra labor. This isn't really a social commentary on the ACA, so much as the "living wage" discussion, although depending on your point of view, the ACA is either helping to solve or mitigate, or compounding the problems there.
    I would say it's compounding the problems if something like this is encouraging people to participate less in the work force in order to secure a bigger subside. If they are impoverished as you say then they'd qualify for Medicaid that was expanded under the ACA. They wouldn't need the subsides. I would lean towards the CBO figuring out there will be a subset of people who will likely be able to game the system.
    02-05-2014 10:46 PM
  14. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I would say it's compounding the problems if something like this is encouraging people to participate less in the work force in order to secure a bigger subside.
    Not sure how many people have considered this, but it's a double whammy on the financial side. Not only are they taking more money from the government, but they are also contributing less tax revenue. That either drains the government more, and/or puts more of a tax burden on everyone else.
    02-05-2014 10:52 PM
  15. SteveISU's Avatar
    Not sure how many people have considered this, but it's a double whammy on the financial side. Not only are they taking more money from the government, but they are also contributing less tax revenue. That either drains the government more, and/or puts more of a tax burden on everyone else.
    They don't care, they got theirs and some people here wouldn't care because evil corporations have yet to PAYYYYYYYYY.
    02-05-2014 10:56 PM
  16. Aquila's Avatar
    I would say it's compounding the problems if something like this is encouraging people to participate less in the work force in order to secure a bigger subside. If they are impoverished as you say then they'd qualify for Medicaid that was expanded under the ACA. They wouldn't need the subsides. I would lean towards the CBO figuring out there will be a subset of people who will likely be able to game the system.
    It's the fuzzy area next to being literally in poverty and being above it. The employees are not creating a situation where it costs them more to work than it does to not work, that's what a combination of our market and regulations are doing. It might be gaming the system, but when your income is limited to where you must really work hard to make ends meet, who in their right mind would work more hours in order to have less money to spend?

    If your company offered you $10,000 less per year to work 10 more hours per week, would you accept that? I'm in no way saying that I like this situation, but I have mentioned a few times, that my wife's full time job pays for not a lot more than daycare for our daughters. There are numerous times where I have considered asking her to remain home to save that expense and/or find a part time job instead of working full time, but there are a lot of factors into what would make that a good decision or not. From the employee's perspective, I would assume that they view this situation on their personal finance in a very similar light: finding a job with hours and income that match their family's needs.

    Granted, there is a huge difference between us making that decision and if we were making that decision while receiving assistance and I do get how that has some moral implications, however I'm not sure it would appear the same to a person who is literally throwing income away in order to work more. If it is not subsidized, it's clearly not wrong to work less or work more for whatever value you feel your time is worth, so we're really talking about the issue of accepting a subsidy even though you know you could almost otherwise afford it. If that's the difference between paying for food or not... then we have competing moral priorities.

    From a federal budget standpoint this does suck, as it essentially is creating another welfare system, but I'm unclear on how specifically the subsidies are financed and how those costs compare to actual welfare programs as they are passed on to citizens.
    02-05-2014 11:21 PM
  17. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    So you're saying it bad for me to signup for Secret Santa to help a family in need with Christmas presents for their kid?
    Not even remotely close to the same thing.

    Sent from my XT1060 using AC Forums mobile app
    02-06-2014 03:32 AM
  18. rexxman's Avatar
    I would say it's compounding the problems if something like this is encouraging people to participate less in the work force in order to secure a bigger subside. If they are impoverished as you say then they'd qualify for Medicaid that was expanded under the ACA. They wouldn't need the subsides. I would lean towards the CBO figuring out there will be a subset of people who will likely be able to game the system.
    Many States did not expand Medicare under the terms of the ACA. Guess which ones?
    02-06-2014 11:03 AM
  19. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    It is hard for me to think of a single other country which has ever been so hell-bent on trying to screw itself as this one is.
    nolittdroid likes this.
    02-06-2014 11:52 AM
  20. palandri's Avatar
    It is hard for me to think of a single other country which has ever been so hell-bent on trying to screw itself as this one is.
    I think CDC has traced these actions down to a new virus called rightwingfluenza.
    02-06-2014 02:13 PM
  21. NoYankees44's Avatar
    I think CDC has traced these actions down to a new virus called rightwingfluenza.
    Yeah the same ideals that have guided this country for the majority of its existence...
    02-06-2014 02:40 PM
  22. nolittdroid's Avatar
    Scroll back and I've offered up plenty of ideas. I'm not sure why your so hung up on BC or abortion, I've not once mentioned it.

    Your insurance doesn't cover hearing aids, yet there are some that do. Some cover $500 an ear, $600 an ear, 80% once your out of pocket is met. So the question is, if hearing aid coverage is important for you, why not find a plan that covers them? Wouldn't that be the ideal CHOICE. Many are going the discount program route for their members. I understand your reliance on hearing aids, but the #1 reason why people who are hard of hearing don't get hearing aids isn't cost or insurance coverage. It's the fact that they don't think their hearing loss is significant enough to warrant wearing hearing aids. We know this because there have been numerous studies done in countries who provide hearing aids through their UHC and half with hearing loss don't get them, even though they are "free".

    You assume there are interest groups that have it out for deaf and hard of hearing people, it's a decision your state insurance regulators made on what mandates they force on insurance companies. I hate to break it to you but take out the special interests and all the evil people you think have their hands in it, go look at the holy grail of socialized medicine in this country that everyone points to and says "SEE" they're happy (ie....Medicare). Medicare doesn't cover hearing aids either. Some states have Public Aid paying $376 for a single hearing aid but you won't necessary like what you'll get. Lets not look beyond the fact that in order to pay for the ACA DME companies were going to be taxed, that included hearing aid manufactures. So they'd put a bigger portion of the burden on your back when Siemens passes that tax on down to you.
    You assume too much. I'm "hung up" on birth control because its a pertinent issue that's in headlines...doesn't take a genius to figure out why a young woman would be concerned about it

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    msndrstood likes this.
    02-06-2014 03:08 PM
  23. SteveISU's Avatar
    You assume too much. I'm "hung up" on birth control because its a pertinent issue that's in headlines...doesn't take a genius to figure out why a young woman would be concerned about it

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    How do I assume too much? Enlighten!
    02-06-2014 04:58 PM
  24. anon8126715's Avatar
    How do I assume too much? Enlighten!

    Probably has something to do with the first 3 letters of the word "assume", but I'm only assuming myself....
    nolittdroid likes this.
    02-06-2014 07:34 PM
  25. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    Why do they keep making all of these fake wars instead of fighting things that need to be fixed? Income equality? I dont care to make the same money everyone else makes. should everyone drive the same vehicles also?

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    02-13-2014 08:12 PM
308 ... 7891011 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-26-2014, 08:31 PM
  2. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-28-2014, 04:15 PM
  3. Google Now in place of S Voice
    By roguetrader in forum Samsung Galaxy Note 3
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-28-2014, 11:24 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-28-2014, 09:36 AM
  5. The Nexus 4 Question !
    By Mateusz Gmyz in forum Google Nexus 4
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-28-2014, 07:38 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD