quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

This plan is like putting a bandaid on an arterial bleed.

The affordable care act, as it stands, is the problem. It has cost people the coverage they want to keep, has not significantly lowered costs for lower income families to get insurance, even with the subsidies and pools.

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl
It is my understanding that there are 2 different types of subsidies...

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

"The legislation, offered by Rep. Todd Young (R-IN) and 208 co-sponsors as a tweak to Obamacare, would change the definition of a full-time work week under the health care law from 30 hours per week to 40 hours. The aim was to mitigate the effect of the law's employer mandate, which says businesses with 50 or more workers must offer insurance to full-time employees."

"An analysis of the bill, released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, found that it would cause 1 million people to lose their employer-based insurance coverage. The report projected that more than 500,000 of them would end up getting coverage through Medicaid, the Children's Health Care Program or the Obamacare exchanges. The rest, CBO and JCT said, would become uninsured."


I think many of the workers with families not eligible for Medicaid would become eligible for subsidized coverage on the exchange. When figuring how many would qualify for the exchange, did they count the number of people in their families? Surely losing employer provided health insurance would qualify as a "life changing event" that would enable them to enroll in a policy on the exchange after open enrollment ends. IMO, it's important to remember that costs associated with employer provided health insurance are NOT based on income while costs associated with health insurance on the exchange ARE based on income. Employer provided health insurance often isn't a good deal for workers with families. Employers offer family coverage, but many only subsidize the worker. That's why the premium, deductible, and annual out of pocket maximum skyrockets when adding a spouse or child to the policy. Unfortunately, if an employer offers family coverage, the entire family is ineligible for federal subsidies, regardless of income (even if they're not subsidized by the employer). The 9.5% Affordability Test is a joke because it only counts the employee's portion of the premium. The truth is, many families can get a far better deal on the exchange than they would with employer provided coverage. Anything that increases the number of people eligible for health care based on their income, I'm all for it!!

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/todd-young-obamacare-bill-cbo-report

quote:

and the same question is valid for insurance companies. Why have them involved in healthcare, siphoning off the money?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

"The legislation, offered by Rep. Todd Young (R-IN) and 208 co-sponsors as a tweak to Obamacare, would change the definition of a full-time work week under the health care law from 30 hours per week to 40 hours. The aim was to mitigate the effect of the law's employer mandate, which says businesses with 50 or more workers must offer insurance to full-time employees."

"An analysis of the bill, released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, found that it would cause 1 million people to lose their employer-based insurance coverage. The report projected that more than 500,000 of them would end up getting coverage through Medicaid, the Children's Health Care Program or the Obamacare exchanges. The rest, CBO and JCT said, would become uninsured."


I think many of the workers with families not eligible for Medicaid would become eligible for subsidized coverage on the exchange. When figuring how many would qualify for the exchange, did they count the number of people in their families? Surely losing employer provided health insurance would qualify as a "life changing event" that would enable them to enroll in a policy on the exchange after open enrollment ends. IMO, it's important to remember that costs associated with employer provided health insurance are NOT based on income while costs associated with health insurance on the exchange ARE based on income. Employer provided health insurance often isn't a good deal for workers with families. Employers offer family coverage, but many only subsidize the worker. That's why the premium, deductible, and annual out of pocket maximum skyrockets when adding a spouse or child to the policy. Unfortunately, if an employer offers family coverage, the entire family is ineligible for federal subsidies, regardless of income (even if they're not subsidized by the employer). The 9.5% Affordability Test is a joke because it only counts the employee's portion of the premium. The truth is, many families can get a far better deal on the exchange than they would with employer provided coverage. Anything that increases the number of people eligible for health care based on their income, I'm all for it!!

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/todd-young-obamacare-bill-cbo-report

Translation.....Kill American Workers Act.....


The same way "right to work" means right to slavery....

quote:

ORIGINAL: FellowSlave

quote:

and the same question is valid for insurance companies. Why have them involved in healthcare, siphoning off the money?

This is not valid point. Workplaces are unnecessary middlemen, insurance has clear purpose. Even the state run healthcare systems are essentially insurance.
For obvious reasons out of pocket system would work only for treating small injuries and minor health problems.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

"The legislation, offered by Rep. Todd Young (R-IN) and 208 co-sponsors as a tweak to Obamacare, would change the definition of a full-time work week under the health care law from 30 hours per week to 40 hours. The aim was to mitigate the effect of the law's employer mandate, which says businesses with 50 or more workers must offer insurance to full-time employees."

"An analysis of the bill, released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, found that it would cause 1 million people to lose their employer-based insurance coverage. The report projected that more than 500,000 of them would end up getting coverage through Medicaid, the Children's Health Care Program or the Obamacare exchanges. The rest, CBO and JCT said, would become uninsured."


I think many of the workers with families not eligible for Medicaid would become eligible for subsidized coverage on the exchange. When figuring how many would qualify for the exchange, did they count the number of people in their families? Surely losing employer provided health insurance would qualify as a "life changing event" that would enable them to enroll in a policy on the exchange after open enrollment ends. IMO, it's important to remember that costs associated with employer provided health insurance are NOT based on income while costs associated with health insurance on the exchange ARE based on income. Employer provided health insurance often isn't a good deal for workers with families. Employers offer family coverage, but many only subsidize the worker. That's why the premium, deductible, and annual out of pocket maximum skyrockets when adding a spouse or child to the policy. Unfortunately, if an employer offers family coverage, the entire family is ineligible for federal subsidies, regardless of income (even if they're not subsidized by the employer). The 9.5% Affordability Test is a joke because it only counts the employee's portion of the premium. The truth is, many families can get a far better deal on the exchange than they would with employer provided coverage. Anything that increases the number of people eligible for health care based on their income, I'm all for it!!

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/todd-young-obamacare-bill-cbo-report

Translation.....Kill American Workers Act.....


The same way "right to work" means right to slavery....

Right to work means Unions are welcome (as they are in every state...even those where Governors are forcefully against them)....they simply can't mandate that these same workers are required to pay someone, weekly....to keep their job.

Like they do in the Godfather movies.

Wanna work...get a job, show up, do a good job.

That's right to work.

No cost involved, just do a good job.

Unions are fully welcome.....in every right to work state.

(It's federal law).

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

VW may have been ok with the union but obviously not all the workers were. It's just a shame that the union can't accept that and are whining for a new election.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

"The legislation, offered by Rep. Todd Young (R-IN) and 208 co-sponsors as a tweak to Obamacare, would change the definition of a full-time work week under the health care law from 30 hours per week to 40 hours. The aim was to mitigate the effect of the law's employer mandate, which says businesses with 50 or more workers must offer insurance to full-time employees."

"An analysis of the bill, released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, found that it would cause 1 million people to lose their employer-based insurance coverage. The report projected that more than 500,000 of them would end up getting coverage through Medicaid, the Children's Health Care Program or the Obamacare exchanges. The rest, CBO and JCT said, would become uninsured."


I think many of the workers with families not eligible for Medicaid would become eligible for subsidized coverage on the exchange. When figuring how many would qualify for the exchange, did they count the number of people in their families? Surely losing employer provided health insurance would qualify as a "life changing event" that would enable them to enroll in a policy on the exchange after open enrollment ends. IMO, it's important to remember that costs associated with employer provided health insurance are NOT based on income while costs associated with health insurance on the exchange ARE based on income. Employer provided health insurance often isn't a good deal for workers with families. Employers offer family coverage, but many only subsidize the worker. That's why the premium, deductible, and annual out of pocket maximum skyrockets when adding a spouse or child to the policy. Unfortunately, if an employer offers family coverage, the entire family is ineligible for federal subsidies, regardless of income (even if they're not subsidized by the employer). The 9.5% Affordability Test is a joke because it only counts the employee's portion of the premium. The truth is, many families can get a far better deal on the exchange than they would with employer provided coverage. Anything that increases the number of people eligible for health care based on their income, I'm all for it!!

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/todd-young-obamacare-bill-cbo-report

Translation.....Kill American Workers Act.....


The same way "right to work" means right to slavery....

Right to work means Unions are welcome (as they are in every state...even those where Governors are forcefully against them)....they simply can't mandate that these same workers are required to pay someone, weekly....to keep their job.

Like they do in the Godfather movies.

Wanna work...get a job, show up, do a good job.

That's right to work.

No cost involved, just do a good job.

Unions are fully welcome.....in every right to work state.

(It's federal law).

I guess you just missed the Tennessee governor threatening to take back state incentives from Volkswagen if they unionized.....?


Oh that`s right....you only watch faux news.....you did miss that.....FYI, Volkswagen was ok with unionization....


Georgia`s governess just said union jobs are not welcome in her state......


Just thought you`d want to hear some news.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

VW may have been ok with the union but obviously not all the workers were. It's just a shame that the union can't accept that and are whining for a new election.

Actually VW has said they will probably not expand in Chattanooga since the plant didn't unionize since the company board includes union reps who won't approve it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

VW may have been ok with the union but obviously not all the workers were. It's just a shame that the union can't accept that and are whining for a new election.

Actually VW has said they will probably not expand in Chattanooga since the plant didn't unionize since the company board includes union reps who won't approve it.

Of course the union reps won't approve it. They would rather use it to force the union in a plant that already told them they didn't want it. They don't care about the workers who will be effected if new plants don't open. All they care about is getting a foot into the southern states. That's why they won't let the plants have the same workers council that they have in Germany, they don't care about workers, they care about collecting dues.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

VW may have been ok with the union but obviously not all the workers were. It's just a shame that the union can't accept that and are whining for a new election.

Actually VW has said they will probably not expand in Chattanooga since the plant didn't unionize since the company board includes union reps who won't approve it.

Of course the union reps won't approve it. They would rather use it to force the union in a plant that already told them they didn't want it. They don't care about the workers who will be effected if new plants don't open. All they care about is getting a foot into the southern states. That's why they won't let the plants have the same workers council that they have in Germany, they don't care about workers, they care about collecting dues.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

VW may have been ok with the union but obviously not all the workers were. It's just a shame that the union can't accept that and are whining for a new election.

Actually VW has said they will probably not expand in Chattanooga since the plant didn't unionize since the company board includes union reps who won't approve it.

Of course the union reps won't approve it. They would rather use it to force the union in a plant that already told them they didn't want it. They don't care about the workers who will be effected if new plants don't open. All they care about is getting a foot into the southern states. That's why they won't let the plants have the same workers council that they have in Germany, they don't care about workers, they care about collecting dues.

The worker's council rep on the company's board doesn't care about having workers councils? LOL.