All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Who would do a better job of running the USA?
10/6/2013 8:45 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/6/2013 7:48:00 PM (view original):
Do you not understand what "so it's sort of taken certain stage" means?

Which one of those words confuses you?
Lol
10/6/2013 8:49 PM
If you want to say that the ACA has taken center stage because it's Obama's signature legislation and the shut down is actually about the GOP trying to live up to their collective pledge to make sure they obstruct Obama as often as possible, that would be fair.
10/7/2013 12:51 AM
Regardless of the context of the original post, you asked:
Do you still think the shutdown is about the ACA?
Best I can tell, almost everyone on earth who cares thinks the answer to that question is yes...
10/7/2013 8:20 AM
It isn't.   I guess those who care aren't bothering to think.  

Why do you think the GOP is attempting to re-open specific sections of the gov't?
10/7/2013 8:36 AM
Wasn't easy to find but here's a lefty site that agrees with me(I assume a right wing site would be met with "Phhhttt. Righty site nonsense."


http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/10/01/shutdown-government-real-reason/

10/7/2013 9:11 AM

TEABAGGER TERRORISTS

10/8/2013 12:18 PM (edited)
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 7:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/1/2013 6:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 6:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/1/2013 6:47:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/1/2013 6:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 10/1/2013 6:10:00 PM (view original):
If my company chooses to pay the penalty and dump me on the exchange, do I get the same subsidy Congress gets?
No. Congress and staff get the subsidy as a term of their employment.
As voted on by Congress.  So, again, what's good enough for the America is not good enough for them.
Congress is required to be in the exchanges. Are you arguing that they shouldn't get a subsidy or that the exchanges aren't good enough for everyone else?
The two go hand-in-hand.  The law was written by proponents of a single-payer healthcare system and was designed to ultimately produce something very close to it.  The penalties to employers are low enough that it makes much more sound, fiscal sense to pay the penalty and move on.

So, in other words, if putting Americans with strong, employer-subsidized health plans on the exchanges without subsidy is a good solution, why isn't it good enough for them?
This law doesn't put Americans with strong, employer-subsidized health plans into the exchanges (other than congress and their staff).
Maybe not directly, but certainly indirectly.

We received the standard email from our H.R. department this morning notifying us that open enrollment for 2014 benefits will be starting in a couple of weeks.

Two things jumped out at me as I read the document that was attached to the email:

1)  "In 2014, plan premiums are scheduled to increase 8% to 9% due to a number of factors, including health care reform fees . . . :

2)  "Beginning in 2014, we are implementing a $900 annual surcharge for spousal coverage if your spouse or same-sex domestic partner has coverage available through another employer sponsored medical plan and remains in the <my company> medical plan."

So I look at this $900 "spousal surchage" thing and say "WTF!" and start Googling.  Apparently, this has been around for a couple of years, but with the implementation of the ACA now upon us, companies implementing a "spousal surcharge" is becoming much more prevalent as they look for ways to cut their expenses with respect to healthcare benefits BECAUSE of the impositions of the ACA.  Some companies, such as UPS, has dropped spousal coverage altogether from their healthcare plans.

So if you work for a company such as UPS, and your wife is not employed or is employed by somebody who does NOT offer healthcare benefits, he or she has no choice but to be FORCED into the exchanges.

Or . . . if you're in a double-income household where you have a choice of "his employers benefits" or "her employers benefits", you may now have to make a choice of staying in one plan (and paying a surcharge, commonly around $100 a month, or $1200 annually), or splitting between the two plans (which most likely would be more expensive than a single family plan if it weren't for the surcharge).  Either way . . . your healthcare insurance costs have increased BECAUSE of the ACA.

So, please tell me again . . . how is this good for America?
10/8/2013 12:28 PM
Ours stayed the same for the first time ever. Zero increase in premiums.

The UPS droppage of spouses is only if the spouse is covered under another company health plan.
10/8/2013 12:46 PM
OK.

But if each spouse being covered separately by their own employer is more expensive than a "yourself and spouse" plan by one of the employers . . . they, as a couple, they are now paying more in healthcare benefits.
10/8/2013 12:53 PM
I've already said, (and surprisingly it was interpreted as a good thing by bad_luck), the grand scheme is to push everyone on the exchange. They have many incentives to that end.
10/8/2013 12:57 PM
It's also widely thought that UPS is using the ACA as an excuse to do this. They've been looking to do it forever.

How many companies are using the ACA as en excuse to once again maximize profits?
10/8/2013 1:07 PM
If the ACA is imposing fees on companies, should they just collectively shrug their shoulders and say "oh well"?  Does it make them "evil big business" if they attempt to recoup those additional expenses elsewhere, i.e. by cutting benefits?

Is the fact that things are starting to play out exactly the way the opponents of the ACA said they would just a random coincidence, or is there maybe some merit to what they've been warning about?
10/8/2013 1:09 PM
Posted by The Taint on 10/8/2013 12:57:00 PM (view original):
It's also widely thought that UPS is using the ACA as an excuse to do this. They've been looking to do it forever.

How many companies are using the ACA as en excuse to once again maximize profits?
Yep.

Companies were free to cut benefits in the past with the only downside being that everyone would think they were ****** companies.

Now they can do it and blame it on the ACA. No downside!!!!

Blame the companies, not the ACA. The ACA expands healthcare access.
10/8/2013 1:11 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 10/8/2013 1:09:00 PM (view original):
If the ACA is imposing fees on companies, should they just collectively shrug their shoulders and say "oh well"?  Does it make them "evil big business" if they attempt to recoup those additional expenses elsewhere, i.e. by cutting benefits?

Is the fact that things are starting to play out exactly the way the opponents of the ACA said they would just a random coincidence, or is there maybe some merit to what they've been warning about?
The ACA isn't imposing the fee. You said yourself that the spousal surcharge has been available for years.
10/8/2013 1:26 PM
Fees that the ACA are imposing on the employers, i.e. the sponsors of the group health plans.  Dumbass.

http://www.ifebp.org/Resources/Research/acacostsurvey.htm
of 57
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Who would do a better job of running the USA?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.