Who else got an insurance rate hike?
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Jock strap recommendations for low hanging balls?
Next: Media buries story about convictions for massive election rigging
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 9 Apr 2010 10:50 On Apr 7, 7:27 pm, "Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...(a)NoThanks.net> wrote: > "BAR" <sc...(a)you.com> wrote in message > > news:MPG.2626db0beecff47c989db5(a)news.giganews.com... > > > > > In article <yP6vn.306035$OX4.117...(a)newsfe25.iad>, NoS...(a)NoThanks.net > > says... > >> The nature of the "loophole" doesn't alter the fact that it represents > >> billions in revenue for the various companies. IT was a reduction in > >> the expense associated with a specific benefit, whose expressed > >> purpose was to sustain the benefit. Now that the loophole is gone, the > >> benefit too will go. > > >> My understanding is that this particular thing was associated with the > >> Bush administrations free drugs for seniors program, and this program > >> saved them money by maintaining a class of seniors who got their drug > >> money from another source...it was/is apparently cheaper this way than > >> having the govt directly subsidize the seniors. > > >> This will pull billions from salary expenses from various businesses > >> and cannot have any other effect than reducing jobs and/or benefits, > >> depending on how they want to make up the revenue shortfall. > > >> === > >> It was a gift to the large companies that has been closed -- simple as > >> that -- maybe YOU like handing over $$ & then letting them write it off > >> as > >> an expense --- if so - you must be a give it away & borrow type > > > Tax policy should encourage employment rather than discourage > > employment. Screwing the big companies only results in screwing the > > "worker", the guy Obama says he is trying to help. > > > How many people were hired by the poor today? > > Let's give AT&T all of your money then. I can choose to purchase a product from ATT or not. I cannot choose my health insurance though.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 9 Apr 2010 10:52 On Apr 8, 12:56 pm, "Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...(a)NoThanks.net> wrote: > "BAR" <sc...(a)you.com> wrote in message > > news:MPG.26277c7c88830f44989dba(a)news.giganews.com... > > > > > In article <ax8vn.27450$3D3.23...(a)newsfe19.iad>, NoS...(a)NoThanks.net > > says... > > >> "BAR" <sc...(a)you.com> wrote in message > >>news:MPG.2626db0beecff47c989db5(a)news.giganews.com... > >> > In article <yP6vn.306035$OX4.117...(a)newsfe25.iad>, NoS...(a)NoThanks.net > >> > says... > >> >> The nature of the "loophole" doesn't alter the fact that it represents > >> >> billions in revenue for the various companies. IT was a reduction in > >> >> the expense associated with a specific benefit, whose expressed > >> >> purpose was to sustain the benefit. Now that the loophole is gone, the > >> >> benefit too will go. > > >> >> My understanding is that this particular thing was associated with the > >> >> Bush administrations free drugs for seniors program, and this program > >> >> saved them money by maintaining a class of seniors who got their drug > >> >> money from another source...it was/is apparently cheaper this way than > >> >> having the govt directly subsidize the seniors. > > >> >> This will pull billions from salary expenses from various businesses > >> >> and cannot have any other effect than reducing jobs and/or benefits, > >> >> depending on how they want to make up the revenue shortfall. > > >> >> === > >> >> It was a gift to the large companies that has been closed -- simple as > >> >> that -- maybe YOU like handing over $$ & then letting them write it > >> >> off > >> >> as > >> >> an expense --- if so - you must be a give it away & borrow type > > >> > Tax policy should encourage employment rather than discourage > >> > employment. Screwing the big companies only results in screwing the > >> > "worker", the guy Obama says he is trying to help. > > >> > How many people were hired by the poor today? > > >> Let's give AT&T all of your money then. > > > Seriously. Why is their a desire and emphasis from the left to screw and > > or kill the employers? Employers should be worshiped for their ability > > to generate more taxpayers, more revenues for local, state and federal > > coffers. You should be out there encouraging full employment to maximize > > tax revenue. > > How is it screwing them? > > The crazy law (written by Repubs) gave them a 28% subsidy to buy insurance > AND let them write off the total cost of the insurance while keeping your > tax money. > > So -- why not give them all of your money? It was either that or have the govt pay for the services the companies were and are paying for now. FWIW, I don't think the companies or the govt should pay for those services.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 9 Apr 2010 10:53 On Apr 8, 6:53 pm, "gray asphalt" <dontwr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Okay ... let me understand ... > > AARP is an insurance company and that is why > they support health insurance reform? ... while > all of the other companies were against it. > > Makes sense to me, not. And I guess the AMA > supported the health insurance reform bill because > they are all lawyers. AARP stands to make at least hundreds of millions of dollars off this thing.
From: dene on 9 Apr 2010 13:55 "Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message news:8f9e8c65-f27d-40ce-974a-aca10aca853d(a)y14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > People have that choice now and often take it....but it's not the best > choice for everyone. For example...young married couple in their 20's, > having children. Are you expecting them to pony up the first 10k for the > pre-natal and delivery? > > -Greg People do not have that choice. They get the health insurance provided by their employer, and that insurance is far too often designed to suit the needs of the older (and more powerful within the company) employees. People need to be able to choose their own insurance as much as possible, and certainty don't need the govt. or their employers making those choices. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Employers pay most, if not all, the insurance for the employee, so they ain't complaining. Their dependents have the choice of buying in or acquiring their own plans, which they often do. There are no victims in your scenario. They have choices. -Greg
From: Kommienezuspadt on 9 Apr 2010 17:24
"Dinosaur_Sr" <frostback(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote in message news:1a21391e-37d5-4ead-b8e4-5a2adf5632e0(a)r1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... On Apr 8, 12:56 pm, "Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...(a)NoThanks.net> wrote: > "BAR" <sc...(a)you.com> wrote in message > > news:MPG.26277c7c88830f44989dba(a)news.giganews.com... > > > > > In article <ax8vn.27450$3D3.23...(a)newsfe19.iad>, NoS...(a)NoThanks.net > > says... > > >> "BAR" <sc...(a)you.com> wrote in message > >>news:MPG.2626db0beecff47c989db5(a)news.giganews.com... > >> > In article <yP6vn.306035$OX4.117...(a)newsfe25.iad>, > >> > NoS...(a)NoThanks.net > >> > says... > >> >> The nature of the "loophole" doesn't alter the fact that it > >> >> represents > >> >> billions in revenue for the various companies. IT was a reduction in > >> >> the expense associated with a specific benefit, whose expressed > >> >> purpose was to sustain the benefit. Now that the loophole is gone, > >> >> the > >> >> benefit too will go. > > >> >> My understanding is that this particular thing was associated with > >> >> the > >> >> Bush administrations free drugs for seniors program, and this > >> >> program > >> >> saved them money by maintaining a class of seniors who got their > >> >> drug > >> >> money from another source...it was/is apparently cheaper this way > >> >> than > >> >> having the govt directly subsidize the seniors. > > >> >> This will pull billions from salary expenses from various businesses > >> >> and cannot have any other effect than reducing jobs and/or benefits, > >> >> depending on how they want to make up the revenue shortfall. > > >> >> === > >> >> It was a gift to the large companies that has been closed -- simple > >> >> as > >> >> that -- maybe YOU like handing over $$ & then letting them write it > >> >> off > >> >> as > >> >> an expense --- if so - you must be a give it away & borrow type > > >> > Tax policy should encourage employment rather than discourage > >> > employment. Screwing the big companies only results in screwing the > >> > "worker", the guy Obama says he is trying to help. > > >> > How many people were hired by the poor today? > > >> Let's give AT&T all of your money then. > > > Seriously. Why is their a desire and emphasis from the left to screw and > > or kill the employers? Employers should be worshiped for their ability > > to generate more taxpayers, more revenues for local, state and federal > > coffers. You should be out there encouraging full employment to maximize > > tax revenue. > > How is it screwing them? > > The crazy law (written by Repubs) gave them a 28% subsidy to buy insurance > AND let them write off the total cost of the insurance while keeping your > tax money. > > So -- why not give them all of your money? It was either that or have the govt pay for the services the companies were and are paying for now. FWIW, I don't think the companies or the govt should pay for those services. === you'll have to prove to me that it was an either or scenario like you claim. |