Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[Dan T.]

2 hours ago, Bliz said:

 

50 full time employees seems like a lot for a hair salon, no?

 

Perhaps there are other issues here.

 

 

Hell, it takes 32 just to do Donald Trump's hair each morning.

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, twa said:

Always loopholes

simply starting a new LLC with slight difference in name is probably the simplest I'd think.

Lulu's hair salon vs Lulu's hair styling.

 

 

 

In my experience, she could even put the same names on the stores.

[Bliz]

1 hour ago, twa said:

Always loopholes

simply starting a new LLC with slight difference in name is probably the simplest I'd think.

Lulu's hair salon vs Lulu's hair styling.

 

 

 

Not unless she wants to give 51% ownership to someone else.

 

IRS does the same sort of thing, looking for common ownership.  There are loopholes, but it's not quite THAT easy.  Or wasn't, when the feds were actually looking for rule-breakers.  Now...<shrug>

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 hours ago, Bliz said:

 

That makes more sense.  Thanks.

 

I wonder if there aren't loopholes around this.  Like, could she say that now instead of paying people $25/hour, because we have to comply with Obamacare we're cutting salaries across the board to $22/hour, but, anyone who chooses to forego health insurance through the company will get an additional $6,000 in compensation, because we don't want anyone to be "punished" with a less lucrative compensation package just because their spouse has a better plan than us or you found something cheaper on the Exchange.  

 

Basically structure something like that so you're pushing on to the employees most or all of the cost of having to offer health insurance that wasn't part of the compensation package before

My wife got something like this when she worked for General Dynamics.  It was called Health and Wellness if I recall correctly.  It was pre-Obamacare though so I don't know if that is still allowed.  It wsa great though because she was on my military health care.  And got paid extra for not taking health care from her company.

[JSSkinz]

 

 

8 hours ago, Mooka said:

Highlight of the debate for me was the lady that with the hair salon business who claimed she can't afford to expand her business and be Obamacare complaint with her small profit margins. 

...

...

Wtf lady... why would you expand your business if you're not making any money????

 

 

 

The ladies example doesn't make a lot of sense, hair dressers aren't wage earners so they don't get paid a salary and therefore the business wouldn't need to worry about offering Obamacare.  This is how businesses get around Obamacare, someone needs to let her know.

 

Typically a hair salon owner would charge booth rent and get a % of sales and then send a 1099 to the employee at the end of the year.

 

The whole scenario is odd.

[twa]

2 hours ago, Bliz said:

 

Not unless she wants to give 51% ownership to someone else.

 

IRS does the same sort of thing, looking for common ownership.  There are loopholes, but it's not quite THAT easy.  Or wasn't, when the feds were actually looking for rule-breakers.  Now...<shrug>

 

That doesn't make sense, one person can own/control two different companies w/o the employees of one being employees of the other.

[steve09ru]

23 hours ago, Hersh said:

Are you defending Paul Ryan? 

Not defending him- just stating that it's not an overnight change and is something that will take time to get a new policy in place and implemented.  To act and expect otherwise is just grasping for straws and ****ing to just ****

[Larry]

3 minutes ago, steve09ru said:

Not defending him- just stating that it's not an overnight change and is something that will take time to get a new policy in place and implemented.  To act and expect otherwise is just grasping for straws and ****ing to just ****

 

And yet, the GOP has been unanimously voting to repeal Obamacare, in it's entirety, instantly, on what seems like a weekly basis, for five years straight.  

 

The Republicans have already had five times as much time, to come up with a replacement, as Obama and the Dems took, to write the thing in the first place.  (And they've had the advantage of five years experience of looking at Obamacare, and seeing what parts worked and what parts didn't.)  

 

They haven't started.  They don;t have a plan.  They never did.  

 

Well, that's not quite true.  Their plan was "Let's try as hard as we can, to **** it up for everybody, and then hope that everybody blames the other side, for the result, and votes for us.".  

 

(And so far, that's still their plan.)  

[Bliz]

15 hours ago, twa said:

 

That doesn't make sense, one person can own/control two different companies w/o the employees of one being employees of the other.

 

True.  This only looks upstream at obligations the employer has to meet to satisfy govt regs, not downstream effect on employees.  As far as the govt is concerned, if you own and control multiple companies, they get combined for these purposes.  They do the same thing to prevent big companies from cheating the system on a bunch of programs, like opening separate divisions that could qualify for SBA set-asides.

 

http://www.trinet.com/documents/aca/trinet_aca_group_overview.pdf

[Mooka]

13 hours ago, Larry said:

They haven't started.  They don;t have a plan.  They never did.  

 

Again, this is simply not true. Though as of right now, they haven't put forth a replacement yet. 

 

Tom Price's plan has gone through 4 iterations, and passed in 12/2015.    (can read it here: Empowering Patients First Act )

 

Again, I'll assume the new plan will be another iteration of this plan. 

 

 

Since Obama would obviously veto any ACA repeal, no one really focused on the actual plan, but everyone fought over the defunding of Planned Parenthood.   (*at the time) 

 

 

Edited February 9, 2017 by Mooka

[Hersh]

Just now, Mooka said:

 

Again, this is simply not true. Though as of right now, they haven't put forth a replacement yet. 

 

Tom Price's plan has gone through 4 iterations, and passed in 12/2016.    (can read it here: Empowering Patients First Act )

 

Again, I'll assume the new plan will be another iteration of this plan. 

 

 

Since Obama would obviously veto any ACA repeal, no one really focused on the actual plan, but everyone fought over the defunding of Planned Parenthood. 

 

 

#alternative facts. 

 

How come they haven't voted on a new plan yet? or released details of a new plan? or can't agree on a new plan?

 

Sorry, but after six years they should've had a plan ready to go, with implementation steps, ready on January 21st. The fact that they are pushing it off shows clearly that they don't have a plan that matches their rhetoric and they know it. Anyone claiming otherwise is in total denial. 

[Mooka]

31 minutes ago, Hersh said:

#alternative facts. 

 

How come they haven't voted on a new plan yet? or released details of a new plan? or can't agree on a new plan?

 

Sorry, but after six years they should've had a plan ready to go, with implementation steps, ready on January 21st. The fact that they are pushing it off shows clearly that they don't have a plan that matches their rhetoric and they know it. Anyone claiming otherwise is in total denial. 

 

Reality just doesn't fit the narrative that the Republicans don't have a plan. 

 

They may have a bad plan, or the plan may not match conservative rhetoric/values, but they have put forth a plan nearly every single year for these past 6 years. (or at least 4 of 6) And they passed one through the House and Senate.  (through budget reconciliation) 

 

Why haven't they put forth a plan right now? Who knows, but Tom Price hasn't been confirmed yet, which is obviously one reason why they haven't put forth their plan yet. Of course its possible that Tom Price's plan is a big dog-turd and they know it, but I doubt that's the case. (the "they know it" part ) 

 

Edited February 9, 2017 by Mooka

[PeterMP]

49 minutes ago, Mooka said:

 

Reality just doesn't fit the narrative that the Republicans don't have a plan. 

 

They may have a bad plan, or the plan may not match conservative rhetoric/values, but they have put forth a plan nearly every single year for these past 6 years. (or at least 4 of 6) And they passed one through the House and Senate.  (through budget reconciliation) 

 

Why haven't they put forth a plan right now? Who knows, but Tom Price hasn't been confirmed yet, which is obviously one reason why they haven't put forth their plan yet. Of course its possible that Tom Price's plan is a big dog-turd and they know it, but I doubt that's the case. (the "they know it" part ) 

 

 

Trump is already saying it is going to take into 2018 to put together a plan.  Even Ryan is saying it is going to take months.

 

The point is that they know they have been putting together bad plans that they know people aren't going to like and now that they have the chance to actually pass the plan, they do not want to.  Their "plans" have all been for political show.  If they had a good plan that they were willing to pass, they would be moving on it quickly.

Edited February 9, 2017 by PeterMP

[Hersh]

1 hour ago, Mooka said:

 

Reality just doesn't fit the narrative that the Republicans don't have a plan. 

 

They may have a bad plan, or the plan may not match conservative rhetoric/values, but they have put forth a plan nearly every single year for these past 6 years. (or at least 4 of 6) And they passed one through the House and Senate.  (through budget reconciliation) 

 

Why haven't they put forth a plan right now? Who knows, but Tom Price hasn't been confirmed yet, which is obviously one reason why they haven't put forth their plan yet. Of course its possible that Tom Price's plan is a big dog-turd and they know it, but I doubt that's the case. (the "they know it" part ) 

 

This is an hilarious attempt at justifying the GOP inaction and now delay. If the bar is that they have a plan regardless of whether it's good or bad or does what they have claimed or not, than I suppose some of them have some semblance of a plan. The fact that after six years they aren't in agreement and don't actually have anything ready to enact (based on all their statements and inaction) means they really don't have a plan based on anyone's reasonable interpretation of where they should be. Anyone claiming they have a plan ready to implement that meets the promises they have made looks foolish. If they had this plan, they would have started releasing details and started the process in committees at a minimum. 

 

You may now proceed to pretend they have a plan and are delaying just because.

[Mooka]

48 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 This is an hilarious attempt at justifying the GOP inaction and now delay. If the bar is that they have a plan regardless of whether it's good or bad or does what they have claimed or not, than I suppose some of them have some semblance of a plan. 

 

I did not set any bars, nor justify anything. 

 

I simply pointed out that the Republicans have in fact, pushed Tom Price's under John McCain's leadership for the last 6 years, and yes that includes 4 iterations, all the committees, getting it to vote, and every other step that gets legislation to be put in front of the POTUS and enacted into law. (again reconciliation vote)

 

Now that plan was certainly political fodder, or for show as Peter says, but with Tom Price himself being our next Sec. of Health (most likely) I'm going to go out on a giant leap and claim that ultimately their plan, whenever they get to it, will be iteration #5. 

[Larry]

9 hours ago, Mooka said:

 

Reality just doesn't fit the narrative that the Republicans don't have a plan. 

 

They may have a bad plan, or the plan may not match conservative rhetoric/values, but they have put forth a plan nearly every single year for these past 6 years. (or at least 4 of 6) And they passed one through the House and Senate.  (through budget reconciliation) 

 

Why haven't they put forth a plan right now? Who knows, but Tom Price hasn't been confirmed yet, which is obviously one reason why they haven't put forth their plan yet. Of course its possible that Tom Price's plan is a big dog-turd and they know it, but I doubt that's the case. (the "they know it" part ) 

 

 

No, they have put forth a "let's vote for this, and who cares if it sucks, it won't pass, anyway".  

 

Just like Paul Ryan's "budgets".  The GOP has no problem at all, unanimously voting for them.  Just as long as they know they won't pass.  But give them a chance of passing?  Suddenly, those "plans" cannot possibly be allowed to come to a vote.  

[PeterMP]

7 hours ago, Mooka said:

 

I did not set any bars, nor justify anything. 

 

I simply pointed out that the Republicans have in fact, pushed Tom Price's under John McCain's leadership for the last 6 years, and yes that includes 4 iterations, all the committees, getting it to vote, and every other step that gets legislation to be put in front of the POTUS and enacted into law. (again reconciliation vote)

 

Now that plan was certainly political fodder, or for show as Peter says, but with Tom Price himself being our next Sec. of Health (most likely) I'm going to go out on a giant leap and claim that ultimately their plan, whenever they get to it, will be iteration #5. 

 

To reiterate what Larry said with some more details, they are not going to let Tom Price's plan come to a vote while they have control.

 

His plan does nothing to really decrease healthcare costs and will cause more lower and middle class people to have to give up health insurance and health insurance prices will continue to go up.  Fewer people will be insured and the people that keep it will be paying more.

 

They don't want that on their voting record.  They could put it up when it had no chance of becoming law, but they will not let it come for a vote under their control.

 

(I suspect what Trump is secretly hoping by saying it is going to be put off to 2018 is that the Democrats will re-take the Senate in 2018, which means then going forward in 2020, he can continue to blame the ACA and the health care issue on them.  That he couldn't get a deal done to fix it with the Democrats in control in the Senate.)

[visionary]

 

[LadySkinsFan]

Interesting question, and I think you can answer it for yourself, Labrador.

 

It was a mostly Republican idea before Obama and the Dems pushed it because something had to be done for our citizens.

Edited February 14, 2017 by LadySkinsFan

[visionary]

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

Good to see Mark Sanford is able to craft legislation from the Appalachian Trail.  He's a hearty fellow.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

 

[The Sisko]

Quote

She voted for Trump. Now she fears losing the Obamacare plan that saved her life

Kathy Watson was anxious about her health coverage even before she woke up gasping for breath last month and drove herself to the emergency room with a flare-up in her heart condition.

 

After struggling for years without insurance, the 55-year-old former small-business owner — who has battled diabetes, high blood pressure and two cancers — credits Obamacare with saving her life. Watson also voted for Donald Trump, believing the businessman would bring change. She dismissed his campaign pledges to scrap the Affordable Care Act as bluster. Now, as she watches the new president push to kill the law that provided her with a critical lifeline, Watson finds herself among many Trump supporters who must reconcile their votes with worries about the future of their healthcare.

 

Watson, a proud, salty woman who was uninsurable a few years ago, isn’t ready to renounce Trump. But she’s increasingly frustrated by his vague promises to replace Obamacare with something better.

“I’ve been through enough,” Watson said recently, sitting on the patio outside her mobile home, down a sandy road in a rural corner of northern Florida. “I don’t want to go back.”

 

 

 

[LD0506]

Here's the thing, no matter how much bloviation and blather spews out of the So-Called's mouth, there is simply no way to reconcile lowering insurance premiums while guaranteeing behind closed doors that they won't cut into insurance corporation profits. None, kein, zero, they are mutually exclusive positions.

 

So the whole lie-decry-deny cycle will spin around and around, and in the end the people will get it... in the end. Even the lube for that will be an upcharge specifically excluded in the microscopic fine print on the back of the TrumpBuck vouchers they'll hand out. They will rename and blame it all on Obama, that incredible supervillian, and when millions lose coverage that will get blamed on the Dems as well.

 

And if the Dems stand in the middle of the road and just let it run them over then **** 'em, they deserve it.

[Springfield]

Yep.  Can't wait for the rate hikes once Trump gets done ****ing us over.

 

**** should be free.