Health Mandate Delayed for Employers

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Health Mandate Delayed for Employers

    I know, we’re all supposed to think the End Is Nigh because the government has decided to give the 10 percent of large employers who don’t insure their workers another 365 days to do so before levying a small penalty. This could not possibly be a reasonable accommodation to protect jobs and businesses, because as everybody knows, this president hates jobs and businesses.

    No, this brief delay must be a sign that the implementation of the Affordable Care Act is destined to result in abject failure. After all, that’s what every Congressional Republican with the ability to hit send on a press release has told us, over and over again, hoping that repeating their prediction enough times will somehow make it true.

    But here’s my question: if Republicans are so confident Obamacare will end badly, why not just shut up about it? It’s not like they have the votes to repeal the law—a math problem they still haven’t solved after 37 different tries. Their appeal to the Supreme Court ended in defeat at the hands of a conservative chief justice. And now the bulk of the plan will begin to take effect in just a few months.

    At this point, why not sit back and wait for this crazy experiment to self-destruct? Why not let President Obama and the Democrats reckon with the millions of angry Americans who will undoubtedly hate their new insurance or their new insurance protections?

    Because Republicans are terrified that Obamacare could actually work. Already, the law has provided 54 million Americans free access to preventive services like check-ups and mammograms. More than six million seniors have saved more than six billion dollars on their prescriptions. Nearly 13 million consumers have received more than one billion dollars in rebates from insurance companies that had overcharged them. There are more than three million happy young adults who have been allowed to stay on their parents’ health insurance until they turn 26. And in California, a state that represents one-fifth of the U.S. economy, we’ve learned that premiums for the law’s new insurance options have come in lower­ than expected.

                                                                

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Health Mandate Delayed for Employers

    In response to andiejen's comment:

     

    I know, we’re all supposed to think the End Is Nigh because the government has decided to give the 10 percent of large employers who don’t insure their workers another 365 days to do so before levying a small penalty. This could not possibly be a reasonable accommodation to protect jobs and businesses, because as everybody knows, this president hates jobs and businesses.

    No, this brief delay must be a sign that the implementation of the Affordable Care Act is destined to result in abject failure. After all, that’s what every Congressional Republican with the ability to hit send on a press release has told us, over and over again, hoping that repeating their prediction enough times will somehow make it true.

    But here’s my question: if Republicans are so confident Obamacare will end badly, why not just shut up about it? It’s not like they have the votes to repeal the law—a math problem they still haven’t solved after 37 different tries. Their appeal to the Supreme Court ended in defeat at the hands of a conservative chief justice. And now the bulk of the plan will begin to take effect in just a few months.

    At this point, why not sit back and wait for this crazy experiment to self-destruct? Why not let President Obama and the Democrats reckon with the millions of angry Americans who will undoubtedly hate their new insurance or their new insurance protections?

     

    Because Republicans are terrified that Obamacare could actually work. Already, the law has provided 54 million Americans free access to preventive services like check-ups and mammograms. More than six million seniors have saved more than six billion dollars on their prescriptions. Nearly 13 million consumers have received more than one billion dollars in rebates from insurance companies that had overcharged them. There are more than three million happy young adults who have been allowed to stay on their parents’ health insurance until they turn 26. And in California, a state that represents one-fifth of the U.S. economy, we’ve learned that premiums for the law’s new insurance options have come in lower­ than expected.

                                                                

     



    "Because Republicans are terrified that Obamacare could actually work."

     

    No, I don't think that is in play.  But, it makes a nice talking point.

    "Already, the law has provided 54 million Americans free access to preventive services"

    Huh?  Who is paying for the "free" stuff?  Besides, are you seriously going to tell me that 54 million people who otherwise would be not taken care of were magically provided "free"  " preventative services due to Obamacare?  Come on. that statement doesn't even have a passing relationship with the truth. Straight out ofthe White House talking points, and simply a lie.  People always had access to these services, heck, even more than 54 million.  however, some of us continue to pay for them, AND pay for those who now get this access for free.  And, that number will grow to include the hordes of illegal aliens, as we are now on an "honor" system as to eligibility.

    That's some success, throwing the cost of "free" preventative healht care for the new Democrat underclass (illegal immigrants) onto the backs of the middle class.

     

    And the 3 million who are still on their parent healht care insurance up to the age of 26, who's paying for that?  The rest of us.  Yet another mandate funded by the middle class to help kids not get a job.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Health Mandate Delayed for Employers

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Skeeter thinks it's all a massive conspiracy? SHOCKER



    Now, you are just being a jerk.  I didn't say that.

    But, why should we expect you to do anything other than tote the Democrat line and engage in near constant personal attacks rather than actually address the issue?

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Health Mandate Delayed for Employers

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to andiejen's comment:

     

    I know, we’re all supposed to think the End Is Nigh because the government has decided to give the 10 percent of large employers who don’t insure their workers another 365 days to do so before levying a small penalty. This could not possibly be a reasonable accommodation to protect jobs and businesses, because as everybody knows, this president hates jobs and businesses.

    No, this brief delay must be a sign that the implementation of the Affordable Care Act is destined to result in abject failure. After all, that’s what every Congressional Republican with the ability to hit send on a press release has told us, over and over again, hoping that repeating their prediction enough times will somehow make it true.

    But here’s my question: if Republicans are so confident Obamacare will end badly, why not just shut up about it? It’s not like they have the votes to repeal the law—a math problem they still haven’t solved after 37 different tries. Their appeal to the Supreme Court ended in defeat at the hands of a conservative chief justice. And now the bulk of the plan will begin to take effect in just a few months.

    At this point, why not sit back and wait for this crazy experiment to self-destruct? Why not let President Obama and the Democrats reckon with the millions of angry Americans who will undoubtedly hate their new insurance or their new insurance protections?

     

    Because Republicans are terrified that Obamacare could actually work. Already, the law has provided 54 million Americans free access to preventive services like check-ups and mammograms. More than six million seniors have saved more than six billion dollars on their prescriptions. Nearly 13 million consumers have received more than one billion dollars in rebates from insurance companies that had overcharged them. There are more than three million happy young adults who have been allowed to stay on their parents’ health insurance until they turn 26. And in California, a state that represents one-fifth of the U.S. economy, we’ve learned that premiums for the law’s new insurance options have come in lower­ than expected.

                                                                

     



    "Because Republicans are terrified that Obamacare could actually work."

     

    No, I don't think that is in play.  But, it makes a nice talking point.

    "Already, the law has provided 54 million Americans free access to preventive services"

    Huh?  Who is paying for the "free" stuff?  Besides, are you seriously going to tell me that 54 million people who otherwise would be not taken care of were magically provided "free"  " preventative services due to Obamacare?  Come on. that statement doesn't even have a passing relationship with the truth. Straight out ofthe White House talking points, and simply a lie.  People always had access to these services, heck, even more than 54 million.  however, some of us continue to pay for them, AND pay for those who now get this access for free.  And, that number will grow to include the hordes of illegal aliens, as we are now on an "honor" system as to eligibility.

    That's some success, throwing the cost of "free" preventative healht care for the new Democrat underclass (illegal immigrants) onto the backs of the middle class.

     

    And the 3 million who are still on their parent healht care insurance up to the age of 26, who's paying for that?  The rest of us.  Yet another mandate funded by the middle class to help kids not get a job.



    skeeter,

    Where do you get the understanding that these people had preventive care available to them before?

    What they usually did was end up using the E.R. as their M.D. while those of us with insurance did go to our own M.D. not just for preventive care but also for things that should and could be treated in the office...not in a very expensive E.R. visit. That E.R. visit was picked up by the taxpayers because those people had no health insurance.

    One great example is the flu. Those with symptoms of the flu with insurance see their M.D. If you have the flu you usually are prescribed an antibiotic. Those without have been packing the E.R.s of hospitals. Have you ever been in an E.R. during flu season? Jammed packed with flu patients without insurance. Not a very cost effective way to spend taxpayer dollars, is it?

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Health Mandate Delayed for Employers

    What's funny to me is that republicans are complaining and apoplectic about an administrative delay to one portion of the ACA (not the whole thing)....

    ...a law they didn't support in the first place, don't want to see implemented, and are trying their sisyphean best to repeal (without anything substantial to take its place).

     

    They complain incessantly about the admin being "bad for business", when this delay on the employer mandate is specifically with "business" in mind and addressing their concern.

     

    Now, even the Catholic Health Service has come out saying that it's fine with the compromises ironed out for religious objections to contraception coverage and fully backs the overall law as beneficial to the needy.

     

     

     

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Health Mandate Delayed for Employers

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to andiejen's comment:

     

    I know, we’re all supposed to think the End Is Nigh because the government has decided to give the 10 percent of large employers who don’t insure their workers another 365 days to do so before levying a small penalty. This could not possibly be a reasonable accommodation to protect jobs and businesses, because as everybody knows, this president hates jobs and businesses.

    No, this brief delay must be a sign that the implementation of the Affordable Care Act is destined to result in abject failure. After all, that’s what every Congressional Republican with the ability to hit send on a press release has told us, over and over again, hoping that repeating their prediction enough times will somehow make it true.

    But here’s my question: if Republicans are so confident Obamacare will end badly, why not just shut up about it? It’s not like they have the votes to repeal the law—a math problem they still haven’t solved after 37 different tries. Their appeal to the Supreme Court ended in defeat at the hands of a conservative chief justice. And now the bulk of the plan will begin to take effect in just a few months.

    At this point, why not sit back and wait for this crazy experiment to self-destruct? Why not let President Obama and the Democrats reckon with the millions of angry Americans who will undoubtedly hate their new insurance or their new insurance protections?

     

    Because Republicans are terrified that Obamacare could actually work. Already, the law has provided 54 million Americans free access to preventive services like check-ups and mammograms. More than six million seniors have saved more than six billion dollars on their prescriptions. Nearly 13 million consumers have received more than one billion dollars in rebates from insurance companies that had overcharged them. There are more than three million happy young adults who have been allowed to stay on their parents’ health insurance until they turn 26. And in California, a state that represents one-fifth of the U.S. economy, we’ve learned that premiums for the law’s new insurance options have come in lower­ than expected.

                                                                

     



    "Because Republicans are terrified that Obamacare could actually work."

     

    No, I don't think that is in play.  But, it makes a nice talking point.

    "Already, the law has provided 54 million Americans free access to preventive services"

    Huh?  Who is paying for the "free" stuff?  Besides, are you seriously going to tell me that 54 million people who otherwise would be not taken care of were magically provided "free"  " preventative services due to Obamacare?  Come on. that statement doesn't even have a passing relationship with the truth. Straight out ofthe White House talking points, and simply a lie.  People always had access to these services, heck, even more than 54 million.  however, some of us continue to pay for them, AND pay for those who now get this access for free.  And, that number will grow to include the hordes of illegal aliens, as we are now on an "honor" system as to eligibility.

    That's some success, throwing the cost of "free" preventative healht care for the new Democrat underclass (illegal immigrants) onto the backs of the middle class.

     

    And the 3 million who are still on their parent healht care insurance up to the age of 26, who's paying for that?  The rest of us.  Yet another mandate funded by the middle class to help kids not get a job.

     



    skeeter,

     

    Where do you get the understanding that these people had preventive care available to them before?

    What they usually did was end up using the E.R. as their M.D. while those of us with insurance did go to our own M.D. not just for preventive care but also for things that should and could be treated in the office...not in a very expensive E.R. visit. That E.R. visit was picked up by the taxpayers because those people had no health insurance.

    One great example is the flu. Those with symptoms of the flu with insurance see their M.D. If you have the flu you usually are prescribed an antibiotic. Those without have been packing the E.R.s of hospitals. Have you ever been in an E.R. during flu season? Jammed packed with flu patients without insurance. Not a very cost effective way to spend taxpayer dollars, is it?

    [/QUOTE]

    These 54 million, a number the white house talking points mentions, is never backed up with facts.  The number is apparently pulled right out of thin air.  So, let's start there.  Validate the claim.

    The two follow on paragraphs of your post show that they have always had acces to care.  Obama has at best claimed activity that was already in play.  So, you disprove your own point right in the post.

    But, again, this skips right by the key point:  You have an obsession with the government.  Simply put, it is not within the power of the government to do so.  I don't care what SCOTUS says, they got it wrong. Obamacare can't be implemented, apparently, and Obama seems to have the power to decide which laws to enforce, delay, which laws to just ignore.

    Do you really want a society where people are tethered to government for their basic needs?  Do you really want a government where the law is arbitrarily enforced or not enforced, based on what  the President decides?

    Our society is dangerously close to the point where the people no longer control government, but that government controls the people.  When you have an adminsitration that won't do its constitutionally mandated job, that is tyranny.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Health Mandate Delayed for Employers

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    What's funny to me is that republicans are complaining and apoplectic about an administrative delay to one portion of the ACA (not the whole thing)....

    ...a law they didn't support in the first place, don't want to see implemented, and are trying their sisyphean best to repeal (without anything substantial to take its place).

     

    They complain incessantly about the admin being "bad for business", when this delay on the employer mandate is specifically with "business" in mind and addressing their concern.

     

    Now, even the Catholic Health Service has come out saying that it's fine with the compromises ironed out for religious objections to contraception coverage and fully backs the overall law as beneficial to the needy.

     

     

     



    Spin.  The issue is that Obama does not have the power to arbitrarily delay the law.

    If I had my druthers, I'd flush the whole thing, as it is clearly not working.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Health Mandate Delayed for Employers

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

     

     

    The implementation is in the law.  Show me where presidents can just up and change law.

     

     

     

     

    Ummm, no, it isn't.

    There is no date specified in the law for any implementation.

    The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act allows the Obama administration to set the starting date for the information-reporting requirement that is key to enforcing the mandate that companies cover their workers. While the White House hadn’t yet announced a date, enforcement of the mandate had been widely expected to begin in 2014, an official said.

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-07-02/health-law-employer-mandate-said-to-be-delayed-to-2015-by-u-dot-s

     



    Incorrect.  And silly.  A law without dates?  Right.

     

    "The unambiguous start date for Obamacare’s employer mandate, according to Section 1513, is the “months beginning after Dec. 31, 2013.”


    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/11/obamacares-panicked-democrats/#ixzz2YpPTnKy3 
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Health Mandate Delayed for Employers

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    What's funny to me is that republicans are complaining and apoplectic about an administrative delay to one portion of the ACA (not the whole thing)....

    ...a law they didn't support in the first place, don't want to see implemented, and are trying their sisyphean best to repeal (without anything substantial to take its place).

     

    They complain incessantly about the admin being "bad for business", when this delay on the employer mandate is specifically with "business" in mind and addressing their concern.

     

    Now, even the Catholic Health Service has come out saying that it's fine with the compromises ironed out for religious objections to contraception coverage and fully backs the overall law as beneficial to the needy.

     

     

     

     



    Spin.  The issue is that Obama does not have the power to arbitrarily delay the law.

     

    If I had my druthers, I'd flush the whole thing, as it is clearly not working.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's not arbitrary, i.e. the point.  The Treasury has administrative authority and has made an administrative decision.

    And the existing portions of the law which have already been implemented are quite clearly working, whether you want to admit it or not.

    The USSC trumps your druthers, then.  So sorry about that....

     

     

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Health Mandate Delayed for Employers

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    "The unambiguous start date for Obamacare’s employer mandate, according to Section 1513, is the “months beginning after Dec. 31, 2013.”

     



    But not 15 of them?

     

     

    Guess this isn't as clear cut as presented.

    [/QUOTE]

    I would say January qualifies as a month after the date.  But, I see your point.  Bad law. But, we knew that already.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from andiejen. Show andiejen's posts

    Re: Health Mandate Delayed for Employers

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    "The unambiguous start date for Obamacare’s employer mandate, according to Section 1513, is the “months beginning after Dec. 31, 2013.”

     

     



    But not 15 of them?

     

     

     

    Guess this isn't as clear cut as presented.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I would say January qualifies as a month after the date.  But, I see your point.  Bad law. But, we knew that already.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    skeeter,

    Complicated law...not bad law. Not the same thing.

    "We" is who? Certainly not me. Clearly you. 

    Do you really think the the whole of Obamacare will be "chucked" at some point in the future? We know it has been tried 37 times without success. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Health Mandate Delayed for Employers

    In response to andiejen's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    "The unambiguous start date for Obamacare’s employer mandate, according to Section 1513, is the “months beginning after Dec. 31, 2013.”

     

     

     



    But not 15 of them?

     

     

     

     

    Guess this isn't as clear cut as presented.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I would say January qualifies as a month after the date.  But, I see your point.  Bad law. But, we knew that already.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    skeeter,

     

    Complicated law...not bad law. Not the same thing.

    "We" is who? Certainly not me. Clearly you. 

    Do you really think the the whole of Obamacare will be "chucked" at some point in the future? We know it has been tried 37 times without success. 

    [/QUOTE]

    No, it's bad law. I don't think the whole of Obamacare will be chucked, but it should.  Get the government out of our  health care.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Health Mandate Delayed for Employers

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Get government out of my Medicare!



    Yep.

    You got it.  Now, just keep going, and soon I will have you saying get government out of other things. Then, we will have returned to the position of being free people, responsible for ourselves, and not managed by government.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Health Mandate Delayed for Employers

    Which large companies currently don't offer healthcare to their employees?

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Health Mandate Delayed for Employers

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

    Which large companies currently don't offer healthcare to their employees?



    what's your point?

     

Share