Budget Fight: Why Don't The Gop De-Fund Medicare / Social Security?

[twa]

Ah, got it. The 75th non-negotiable demand to kill Obamacare is "just a protest vote". But failing to pass it is "the other guys want to shutdown the government".

Not really believable. But very predictable.

 

 

what would occur if the original house CR passed and was signed?

 

Would it it kill ACA? (hint,it would not even stop the signing up for exchanges)

 

 

Enjoy

[Burgold]

what would occur if the original house CR passed and was signed?

 

Would it it kill ACA? (hint,it would not even stop the signing up for exchanges)

 

 

Enjoy

Are you really suggesting it's good business or good practice to keep a program, have folks sign up for it, and make sure there's no way to fund it or pay the bills?  Or that cutting off all funding isn't an attempt to defacto kill it?

[twa]

Are you really suggesting it's good business or good practice to keep a program, have folks sign up for it, and make sure there's no way to fund it or pay the bills?  Or that cutting off all funding isn't an attempt to defacto kill it?

are you suggesting a CR will fund it for more than a few months?

 

all funding is not impacted and there is a simple way to fund it.....pass funding

 

Obama and Reid refuse to negotiate a budget, a CR or a debt ceiling hike.......**** em

[chipwhich]

And under Obamacare, your medical expenses will be exactly the same, plus the premium.

Not "the maximum out of pocket expense". The premium.

 

And under Obamacare, her spending will change at most by the amount of the premium. 

 

Not the "maximum out of pocket expense".  The premium. 

 

 

Construct me a "average american family" whose expenses will change by more than the amount of the premium. 

 

Pick any hypothetical cherry picked expenses you like. 

 

 Well, now, I may have misjudged you. 

 

I was under the impression that you were trying to advocare for the repeal of Obamacare, and doing so by trying to terrify people with what they hypothetical maximum health care cost might be.  (And conveniently ignoring what their maximum health care cost might be, without it.)  As though Obama is suddenly going to be hitting everybody with a $6000 bill that they wouldn't have had, before. 

 

Now, if your problem with Obamacare is that it has deductibles, and you think it shouldn't, and it has premiums, and you think it should be free, and that it doesn't force people to buy insurance, then I've been totally misreading you. 

 

Sorry, but I don't know how to break up quotes in the new board.

 

"And under Obamacare, your medical expenses will be exactly the same, plus the premium."

 

Correct, you now have an expense you didn't have before.  It's a tax for those who don't use it.

 

"Not "the maximum out of pocket expense". The premium."

 

Correct.

 

"Construct me a "average american family" whose expenses will change by more than the amount of the premium."

 

I am the owner of my company, hence I am the benefits purchaser for my company.  Here is how insurance has been going over the last couple of years, and it will continue under Obamacare.  But get worse.

 

Insurance companies are preferring the "high deductible" insurance.  So the higher I make the deductible, the less chance insurance has to pay a dime.  My first high deductible plan was $1200 for individuals and $2400 for families.  That isn't available anymore, I believe this year my first option was $1500 and $3000.  I ended up choosing a $2000 and $4000 deductible option for Individuals and Families.  That kept my premiums in check.

 

Fortunately for my employees, I pay their deductibles.

So here is what your "average" family gets.  Keep in mind we live in what I call, overprescribed America where doctors solution to every ailment is a prescription drug.  John goes to pharmacy to fill his 3 month supply of HypertesiveRX a drug for high blood pressure.  3 month supply is $819.22  Since John has a deductible he has to pay $819.22 out of pocket.  Meanwhile John's wife takes his kid Joey to the doctor because he has sniffles.  Joey's appointment costs $39.  All out of pocket because of the deductible.  So John's first month of having insurance he pays out $860 plus his premium.  Over $900.

Larry, 10% of my company hits their deductible in 3 months or less.  Last year it was somewhere in the 80% range of employees who spent their whole deductible.  That means a family could look at a payout of their full deductible within a couple of months.  It's a LOT of money.  Most likely all of the "cheap" plans will be high deductible plans.

In addition, NONE of my employees want me to leave Blue Cross/Blue Shield?  Why?  They have the most doctors in network, they cover the most medical issues at better rates.  What happens in Obamacare when Cool Healthcare offers great premiums and people sign up, only to find out that no doctors will take Cool Healthcare.  Or after signing up doctors start dropping Cool Healthcare because they are a hassle to deal with, don't pay fast enough, etc.  That's what doctors have been doing PRIOR to Obamacare's existence.  They are dropping health insurance companies and only dealing with a few.  Too much hassle.

So my friend switched from BC/BS to Cigna.  His daughter has a speech therapist for a problem that occurred during childbirth.  BC/BS covered this care.  Cigna doesn't.  The money he spends on this doctor doesn't count towards his deductible and it doesn't count as an out of pocket expense.  He now has a deductible + a max out of pocket expense + speech therapist fees.

 

"Misreading me"

 

My frustration over Obamacare is it really does nothing but dump people into a crappy insurance system with high deductibles.  max out of pocket outside of premiums from $4000 - $12000 is a lot of money.  If you do something simple like, have a baby, odds are you will hit the max out of pocket.

Now what I don't know is whether any of the out of pocket is tax deductible.  I believe it isn't.

[RedskinsFan44]

It is really just a protest vote and the administration would rather see a shutdown than allow it to pass.

kinda late to be complaining how the legislative process works after all the tricks and bribery used to pass ACA

would you prefer the congresscritters were subject to administrative decrees?....the Founders had a different plan

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.”

―Samuel Adams

 

I love this argument the Republicans are trying to make:

House: Accept our conditions and we will fund the government.

Senate:  Drop the conditions, fund the government.

So the side that wants to pass a simple CR without stipulations is shutting it down, while the side adding demands as a condition to passing a CR is trying to keep it open. 

[LadySkinsFan]

New condition:  contraception.

 

No reproductive freedom for women, enforced pregnancy or abstinence.  And where are all the men going to go to get sexual "relief" if women aren't sexually active?  Treat women like commodities and go to prostitutes?

 

The Republican mindset is obscene.

[twa]

44 they could pass a budget and avoid CR's and raising the debt limit.of course doing so requires negotiation and controlling spending.

 

 

saying give me money comes at a price, unconditional funding does seem like a Democrats wet dream......time to wake up

[Burgold]

44 they could pass a budget and avoid CR's and raising the debt limit.of course doing so requires negotiation and controlling spending.

 

 

saying give me money comes at a price, unconditional funding does seem like a Democrats wet dream......time to wake up

 

Yes, they should pass a budget, but I think it's dishonest to imply that that failure isn't also a result of two partners being unwilling to tango.

[twa]

New condition:  contraception.

 

No reproductive freedom for women, enforced pregnancy or abstinence.  And where are all the men going to go to get sexual "relief" if women aren't sexually active?  Treat women like commodities and go to prostitutes?

 

The Republican mindset is obscene.

 

If I don't pay for your contraceptives you are enslaved?

if they are desperate (or so inclined) they can always find a non-fertile hole

Yes, they should pass a budget, but I think it's dishonest to imply that that failure isn't also a result of two partners being unwilling to tango.

this is a Ménage à trois....everybody is getting ****ed

[Larry]

I see we've moved into the "the Democrats haven't been able to overcome the unanimous Republican filibuster of any attempt at a bipartisan budget, therefore this is all the Democrat's fault" part of the concert.

[twa]

I see you are still singing the It wuzza Them stanza. LOL

 

must be nice to have no obligations or responsibility.

[Larry]

Insurance companies are preferring the "high deductible" insurance.  So the higher I make the deductible, the less chance insurance has to pay a dime.  My first high deductible plan was $1200 for individuals and $2400 for families.  That isn't available anymore, I believe this year my first option was $1500 and $3000.  I ended up choosing a $2000 and $4000 deductible option for Individuals and Families.  That kept my premiums in check.

Not quoting your entire post, just for simplicity.

But now, what I'm hearing, is "If consumers move to a policy that has a higher deductible, then they might have to pay more out of pocket".

I certainly assume that this is true.

But, it's true whether Obamacare passes or not.

Anecdote: I've been complaining about how much my insurance has gone up. And I was wondering if maybe I might switch to the exchanges, when they open. But first I had to check out what my existing policy covers, so I could make a valid comparison.

(I literally don't know what kind of coverage I have. Only thing I've used health insurance for, in 10 years, is like 5 doctor visits, for which I pay a $20 copay.)

Looks like, if I go to the exchanges, my premiums would likely go from $500/mo to more like $350.

And my coverage will go from $1,000 deductible, and they pay 90% after that, to $5,000 deductible, and they pay 80% after that.

Suspect I'm gonna stick with BCBS.

"Misreading me"

 

My frustration over Obamacare is it really does nothing but dump people into a crappy insurance system with high deductibles.  max out of pocket outside of premiums from $4000 - $12000 is a lot of money.  If you do something simple like, have a baby, odds are you will hit the max out of pocket.

Now what I don't know is whether any of the out of pocket is tax deductible.  I believe it isn't.

Observing that Obamacare, far as I'm aware, doesn't "dump" anybody anywhere. All it does is give then the choice.

(Well, there are some exceptions. People who have been carrying coverage that doesn't meet the minimums (or none at all. And people with really expensive plans that won;t be fully tax deductible any more.)

It occurs to me that your company might fall into the latter. What you're giving your employees is basically health insurance with zero deductible. (Which might also explain why so many of them spend so much. But I assume that you know that.) (Just like I assume you're aware that the health care coverage you're describing is an extreme outlier compared to most businesses)

[chipwhich]

New condition:  contraception.

 

No reproductive freedom for women, enforced pregnancy or abstinence.  And where are all the men going to go to get sexual "relief" if women aren't sexually active?  Treat women like commodities and go to prostitutes?

 

The Republican mindset is obscene.

 

Nonsense.

Free contraception is already included in all health care renewals. 

 

BTW free contraception isn't free.  It's not all about religion.  We all pay for that "free" contraception.  By requiring Insurance companies to give it to us for "free" we get higher premiums.

[LadySkinsFan]

"

 

18 hours ago

GOP adds 'conscience clause' to spending bill

Posted by

CNN's Lisa Desjardins

Washington (CNN) - House Republicans have added a measure aimed at limiting contraceptive coverage to the spending bill coming up for a vote Saturday night, a spokesman for Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kansas, told CNN.

A senior House leadership aide confirmed that development.

The so-called “conscience clause” would allow employers and insurers to opt out of preventative care for women which they find objectionable on moral or religious grounds. That prominently includes birth control, which most insurers are required to provide for free under current Obamacare rules. ...."

 

I find it reprehensible that women can't get contraception because someone might object based on moral or religious grounds.  It's none of their ****ing business.

[twa]

You mean you find it objectionable someone else doesn't have to pay for it.

 

that requirement will probably get thrown out by the court soon anyway

[Larry]

I find it reprehensible that women can't get contraception because someone might object based on moral or religious grounds.  It's none of their ****ing business.

It's not the person who's paying for it's business?

Yeah, I suspect that what the GOP has passed is a rule specifying that any employer can demand that the insurance company not pay for contraception. (Which I assume the insurers would much rather pay for, if given the choice. If I'm the insurance company, I'd much rather hand out free birth control pills, than pay for pregnancy care. The pills are just a tad cheaper.)

I CAN see an argument for exceptions in SOME cases. I would assert that yeah, a catholic church should have the option to "opt out". I think things get greyer when it's, say, a catholic school. And even greyer when it's some business that's owned by a church. (Say a hospital or the Watergate.) And yeah, I got a problem when we get into the GOP's position, in which anybody can refuse anything simply by claiming something.

Just pointing out that I do think there are SOME exceptions.

[Burgold]

I've often found it interesting/telling that viagra is covered by almost all insurance with nary a complaint, yet contraception or any procedure involving women's errr... sexual health is highly scrutinized with a strong effort to deny.  Seems odder when some of the women's contraception have been proven to be beneficial when it comes to real medical issues like fighting cancer.

[twa]

some employers are more entitled to exercise religion than others is a strange bar to set

[AsburySkinsFan]

You mean you find it objectionable someone else doesn't have to pay for it.

No actually she seemed pretty clear what she thought was reprehensible, and government is not allowed to adjust it's spending based on religious convictions of the tax payer, heck if that were true I'd be able to get military spending cut based on my religious convictions. And if a Catholic hospital wants to deny contraceptive care then let them drop their insurance coverage. A business owner cannot say that his employees should be exempted from seat belt laws and car insurance because he believes that such things are crutches for people who don't put their full trust in God.

But we all know that the American Right fights for you until you're born, then you're on your own and if you go against American interests then they'll drop bombs on your house.

American Right movement in a nutshell.

[AsburySkinsFan]

some employers are more entitled to exercise religion than others is a strange bar to set

Now that's the truth, and the only reason we're having this discussion is because of the size of the Catholic Church, we don't see the Jehovah's Witnesses swaying this debate on legal requirements that they oppose.

[twa]

No actually she seemed pretty clear what she thought was reprehensible, and government is not allowed to adjust it's spending based on religious convictions of the tax payer, heck if that were true I'd be able to get military spending cut based on my religious convictions.

But we all know that the American Right fights for you until you're born, then you're on your own and if you go against American interests then they'll drop bombs on your house.

American Right movement in a nutshell.

 

The govt adjusts it's spending based on religious convictions all the time.

 

Some of the right will give you a chance to survive,some of the Left prefer you don't exist

[AsburySkinsFan]

The govt adjusts it's spending based on religious convictions all the time.

Would you like to state examples of spending that is adjusted because of religious convictions? Please cite the chapter and verses that the government is using to substantiate each adjustment.

 

Some of the right will give you a chance to survive, some of the Left prefer you don't exist

At this point the Right then should take the responsibility for your life since they were the one's who insisted you be born into poverty in the first place. Oh and let's not pretend this is about abortion, because this is all about condoms and BC pills.

[twa]

I thought it was about the CR?

 

as far as religion affecting govt spending you could start with accommodating prisoners and the military....there are numerous other examples(such as medical care).....the more control the govt exerts the greater the spending adjustment.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I thought it was about the CR?

What? The CR is the excuse it's always been about trying to defund the ACA....or did you just think the GOP hardliners were teasing in the last election.

BTW, I'm no longer calling them the "Right" they are our version of the Soviet Hardliners.

as far as religion affecting govt spending you could start with accommodating prisoners and the military....there are numerous other examples(such as medical care).....the more control the govt exerts the greater the spending adjustment.

And yet, the prisoner accomodations and military are not based on religious convictions so much as they are based on human rights. Now, you can make the case that human right recognition is a religious conviction, but that's a tough sell in a sociery that believes that morality can exist outside of religion.

What's more is that even Pope Benedict said that contraception was permissible in certain cases like in Africa to stop the spread of AIDS, as such anyone pretending that the banning of contraception by the Catholic church is absolute is in error, and if it isn't absolute then how can be understood as an authoritative teaching that contracption is a sin?

[Larry]

But haven't you heard? Imposing your religion on others is religious freedom. (If the religion is Christianity).

And anybody who disagrees is infringing on your religious freedom.