Entire ACA upheld by Supreme Court

[Danzig]

Matter of fact.....remove the ss tax that the employer pays rather then the employee...how much money would that free to hire more people's?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Matter of fact.....remove the ss tax that the employer pays rather then the employee...how much money would that free to Put in the CEO's bonus?

FTFY. It isn't 1970 anymore.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Matter of fact.....remove the ss tax that the employer pays rather then the employee...how much money would that free to hire more people's?

As a small business owner, I'll say this: if your business has gotten so busy, you need more employees, you hire them. That's the only incentive to hire.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Riot

As a small business owner, I'll say this: if your business has gotten so busy, you need more employees, you hire them. That's the only incentive to hire.

What about the job creators, won't they create a bunch of jobs when Mittster is prez?....
btw, read or heard somewhere that the Mitt/Bain sending jobs overseas is a myth!...think i heard that on Faux...

[Danzig]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/p...191746511.html


interesting....but the dem. party will probably tell them to vote for repeal. one, they want to keep the seat, two, it won't matter anyway because the senate won't vote to repeal.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

FTFY. It isn't 1970 anymore.

i was thinking along the lines of small business-most employers are very small businesses, with no ceo's-unless the owner/operator/manager wants to give himself that fancy title. i'm certainly not thinking of titans like gm, ge, etc.

[Riot]

healthcare.gov

The 80/20 Rule: Providing Value and Rebates to Millions of Consumers

The new health reform law, the Affordable Care Act, holds health insurance companies accountable to consumers and ensures that American families are reimbursed if health insurance companies don’t meet a fair standard of value.

Because of the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies now must reveal how much of premium dollars they actually spend on health care and how much they spend on administration, such as salaries and marketing.

This information was not shared with consumers in the past.

Not only is this information made available to consumers for the first time, If an insurance company spends less than 80% of premiums on medical care and quality (or less than 85% in the large group market, which is generally insurance provided through large employers), it must rebate the portion of premium dollars that exceeded this limit.[1] This 80/20 rule is commonly known as the Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) rule.

On June 1, 2012, insurance companies nationwide submitted their annual MLR reports for coverage provided in 2011 to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Based on this data, insurance companies that didn’t meet the 80/20 rule will provide nearly 12.8 million Americans with more than $1.1 billion in rebates this year. Americans receiving the rebate will benefit from an average rebate of $151 per household.

Under the new health care law, rebates must be paid by Aug. 1 each year. As a result, 12.8 million Americans will see one of the following:

a rebate check in the mail
a lump-sum reimbursement to the same account that was used to pay the premium if it was paid by credit card or debit card
a direct reduction in their future premiums
their employer providing one of the above rebate methods, or applying the rebate in a manner that benefits its employees.

Here are the expected 2012 rebates:

[bigrun]

[Riot]

The Republican "Replacement" Health Care plan is "Obamacare", and has been since the Republicans in the House and Senate first introduced "Obamacare" as GOP legislation in 1993. The Republicans have nothing to "replace" with, as the Dems already passed their GOP "It's replacement for Hillarycare" health care plan.

One of the biggest differences between "Romneycare" (Heritage Foundation Individual Mandate Plan) and "Obamacare" is that Romneycare pays for abortions. Obamacare does not.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Riot

The Republican "Replacement" Health Care plan is "Obamacare", and has been since the Republicans in the House and Senate first introduced "Obamacare" as GOP legislation in 1993. The Republicans have nothing to "replace" with, as the Dems already passed their GOP "It's replacement for Hillarycare" health care plan.

One of the biggest differences between "Romneycare" (Heritage Foundation Individual Mandate Plan) and "Obamacare" is that Romneycare pays for abortions. Obamacare does not.

What!...wait...you must have that backwards......I demand an investigation..

[Rileyoriley]

The "Romneycare" abortions was added by the current governor of Mass.(Obama's buddy Deval) and the democratic legislature, not Romney. There were many additional mandates added later which is why everyone in Mass. must have the "cadillac" plan to qualify.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

The "Romneycare" abortions was added by the current governor of Mass.(Obama's buddy Deval) and the democratic legislature, not Romney. There were many additional mandates added later which is why everyone in Mass. must have the "cadillac" plan to qualify.

Ma'am..if you're gonna speak truth around theses parts, it's best if you just move along.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

The "Romneycare" abortions was added by the current governor of Mass.(Obama's buddy Deval) and the democratic legislature, not Romney. There were many additional mandates added later which is why everyone in Mass. must have the "cadillac" plan to qualify.

Strange. Not according to Politifact (below), which says abortion has been covered since day one of the bill being signed into law by Romney.

Do you have any link for the claim you make about abortion not being covered, but was added later by Deval?

(which is rather a moot point, however, as it still makes it true that Romneycare covers abortions, and Obamacare does not)

But because of a 1981 Supreme Judicial Court ruling in Massachusetts, the cost of abortions must be included in publicly subsidized plans. Most private insurance plans in the U.S. include abortion coverage, and the state-subsidized plans in Massachusetts do, too. That includes coverage for Massachusetts residents enrolled in Medicaid.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by GPK

Ma'am..if you're gonna speak truth around theses parts, it's best if you just move along.

Actually, she just needs to say where she heard that, before it's called "truth"

[Riot]

This is interesting ... Romneycare has covered abortion since it's inception, and in the first two years of it's existence, abortion rates lowered due to better health care access.

Cool. Less abortion = better, IMO

This is from PoliticsDaily, two years ago, when the ACA was first being discussed:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03...uce-abortions/

study published in the latest New England Journal of Medicine shows that abortion rates declined during the first two years that Massachusetts implemented a near-universal health coverage program much like the nationwide plan currently before Congress.

The research, which was released Wednesday, comes as the question of abortion is emerging as a pivotal factor in the Capitol Hill debate on overhauling health care. A cadre of anti-abortion House Democrats who could be critical to the bill's passage say provisions on abortion financing in the Senate bill are too weak.

That argument has come under sharp criticism from health care experts and ethicists in recent days. A growing number of Catholic leaders and organizations have also split with those Democratic opponents and the Catholic hierarchy, saying they believe the Senate bill does not allow for taxpayer money to underwrite abortions and therefore is worthy of support.

The latest to break with the bishops and support the bill is a coalition of Catholic nuns who head 60 religious orders representing tens of thousands of sisters, many of whom are directly involved in providing health care. A letter from the organization, a social justice association called NETWORK, was sent to all members of Congress on Wednesday and urges House members "to cast a life-affirming 'yes' vote when the Senate health care bill...comes to the floor of the House for a vote."

The sisters are emphatic in rejecting "false claims" that the Senate bill would finance abortion, and they -- like many others -- argue that enacting health care reform would save lives and support families.

The study on abortion rates released Wednesday could bolster that argument. It shows that the number of abortions in Massachusetts declined by 1.5 percent during the first two years of the new health care program (2007-2009) and the decline was 7.4 percent among teenagers -- even though the percentage of non-elderly people receiving coverage went up nearly 6 percent.

The study also points out that the abortion decrease occurred "despite public and private funding of abortion that is substantially more liberal than the provisions of the federal legislation currently under consideration by Congress." Massachusetts is one of 17 states where the state government finances abortions under Medicaid that the federal government cannot pay for.

The research project originated with Catholic Democrats, a pro-life organization affiliated with the Democratic Party, and was conducted by its president, Dr. Patrick Whelan, who serves on the pediatric faculty at Harvard Medical School and is a pediatric specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital for Children in Boston. Whelan also wrote the article for the New England Journal of Medicine, which reviewed it before publication.

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by GPK

Ma'am..if you're gonna speak truth around theses parts, it's best if you just move along.

Actually I stand corrected. Riot is right that it was in the original law. Romney vetoed it and the democratic legislature overrode his veto. He vetoed 8 mandates but the legislature overrode every one of them. It's also important to note that the Mass law was only 70 pages long and more importantly, Romney balanced the state budget BEFORE introducing the health care bill.
And no, I'm not going to provide links, pie charts, graphs or anything else. I happen to think the posters here are not as stupid as some believe and are quite capable of looking up info if they are interested and making up their own minds.
Romney was a good governor of this state. How many people know that he never accepted the governor's salary when he was governor?

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

Actually I stand corrected. Riot is right that it was in the original law. Romney vetoed it and the democratic legislature overrode his veto. He vetoed 8 mandates but the legislature overrode every one of them. It's also important to note that the Mass law was only 70 pages long and more importantly, Romney balanced the state budget BEFORE introducing the health care bill.
And no, I'm not going to provide links, pie charts, graphs or anything else. I happen to think the posters here are not as stupid as some believe and are quite capable of looking up info if they are interested and making up their own minds.
Romney was a good governor of this state. How many people know that he never accepted the governor's salary when he was governor?

Right or wrong, who cares?? I was just trying to rile sh*t up.

Slow night.

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by GPK

Right or wrong, who cares?? I was just trying to rile sh*t up.

Slow night.

Rabblerouser

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

Actually I stand corrected. Riot is right that it was in the original law. Romney vetoed it and the democratic legislature overrode his veto. He vetoed 8 mandates but the legislature overrode every one of them. It's also important to note that the Mass law was only 70 pages long and more importantly, Romney balanced the state budget BEFORE introducing the health care bill.
And no, I'm not going to provide links, pie charts, graphs or anything else. I happen to think the posters here are not as stupid as some believe and are quite capable of looking up info if they are interested and making up their own minds.
Romney was a good governor of this state. How many people know that he never accepted the governor's salary when he was governor?

Too bad Romney can't run on his excellent signature legislative achievement with the current GOP makeup His policies as Gov. of Mass. were very "typical Republican", for what a Republican used to be. It's sad to see him pretend to be something he isn't, just to please the dominant wingnuts in the current version of "Republicanism".

[Riot]

Originally Posted by GPK

Right or wrong, who cares?? I was just trying to rile sh*t up.

Slow night.

Karma is a biotch