Yes. It expands eligibility for Medicaid and forces insurance companies to cover individuals they otherwise would not, at the same time giving subsidies to individuals to purchase the insurance.
What Liberals do not want us to see.
- Thread starter ironsides
- Start date
Yes. It expands eligibility for Medicaid and forces insurance companies to cover individuals they otherwise would not, at the same time giving subsidies to individuals to purchase the insurance.
...which, in turn, ups the rates for folks above the subsidy line. There is no such thing as give when private insurance companies are the package.
For those 30 million uninsured people not being able to get insurance, I think "give" is the proper term to use. There is a problem with the new law in regards to individuals in the individual market (people who buy insurance on their own) not qualifying for subsidies, but that's a slim minority of Americans. A supermajortiy of insured Americans (in the 80% range) get their insurance through their employers, and the remaining insured Americans are in the individual market. And 57% of the Americans in the individual market wil see their premiums reduced by about half.
This leaves the small minority in the individual market that won't be eligible for subsidies. They will probably be some other solution for them coming in future legislation.
But keep mind, the health reform law keeps premiums from rising from the way they would without the law too. So, if the individual market people who can't get subsides see their premiums increase by 10% because of the law might've seen their premiums increase by 30% without the law.
This leaves the small minority in the individual market that won't be eligible for subsidies. They will probably be some other solution for them coming in future legislation.
But keep mind, the health reform law keeps premiums from rising from the way they would without the law too. So, if the individual market people who can't get subsides see their premiums increase by 10% because of the law might've seen their premiums increase by 30% without the law.
I hope you have better control over your insurance companies than Ontario did when auto insurance became mandatory. The private sector is in business for profit - and left unchecked, insurance people are as greedy as bankers.
Those 30 million or so could have been given insurance policies far cheaper than by completely upsetting the current health care system. Insurance for 30 million is a drop in the bucket for us. But No, Obama, Pelosi and the democratic party want to get their cut of the pie. (Just thieves like the previous group)
It is a drop in the bucket for the goverment. Buy the way all of those 30 million or so are not poor.
Posies For Pelosi
We Need To Throw These Bums Out in 2010
We Need To Throw These Bums Out in 2010
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) spent $2,993 in taxpayer money on flowers between June and October. House Majority Whip James Clyburn has a thing for Chantilly Donuts, spending about $265 at the Virginia shop in the past quarter. And Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), a fiscal conservative, decided to give about $2,000 in unused office funds back to the government to help reduce the deficit.
These expenditures – culled from thousands of line items released Monday by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House – are just a fraction of the $300 million spent last quarter by House offices. But while the bulk of congressional office spending goes to salaries and routine office expenses, some of the line items offer a window into the personalities and priorities of each congressional office.
Pelosi, who has come under fire in the past for spending on flowers, also spent roughly $30,610 in food and beverage and about $2,740 on bottled water, contributing to the nearly $120,531 total from all congressional leadership accounts. Her offices defended the charges, saying the Speaker’s office holds more ceremonial events with visiting dignitaries than other congressional offices. They also use a local florist, and about a third of her flower expenses this quarter were for Jack Kemp’s funeral.
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) racked up about $24,617 in catering costs. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) spent about $1,561 in bottled water and House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) spent no money on water but a touch over $18,000 in food. House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) spent about $24,116 on food and beverage.
These line by line expenditures used to come just in bound green books, but for the first time ever, Pelosi requested that the reports also be put online this quarter.
The nearly 3,400 digitized pages were released Monday afternoon and touted by Pelosi as expanding “accountability to taxpayers and the press.”
Most of the expenditures seem standard – everything from individual staff salaries to office supplies is listed. Most offices order food from the Capitol Host in-house catering service, but others order from outside locales. Clyburn, for example, frequently purchases donuts for his office from Chantilly Donuts in Virginia, where he spent about $265 in the period stretching from June until the end of September.
One of the biggest line items for congressional offices outside of salaries tends to be the pricy subscriptions to Congressional Quarterly, which produces high end legislative tracking products, a magazine and a daily publication. Cantor and Boehner together spent $69,832.50 on the company’s publications – Boehner spent $48,085 on CQ publications.
Lawmakers appear to have great flexibility on what qualifies as an office expense. Money is spent on everything from security services for district offices to thousands in mileage reimbursements for individuals’ cars. Taxpayers foot the bill for leasing cars for members, including cars for Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) and Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas).
Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) spent $28,410 with a market communications firm to send a newsletter to his constituents, querying them on issues ranging from the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, earmark reform and health care. A spokesman said it was sent to 196,000 constituents and is just “one of the many tools Congressman Kirk uses to communicate with constituents.”
Some even have money left over to give back to the government. Walz and Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) both returned about $2,500 to cut away at the deficit. Bachus, a fiscal conservative, said he does not take cost-of-living increases in the middle of a congressional term.
__________________
Being that the U.S. is several $trillion in debt I think it's a little more than a drop in a bucket. :smile:
We just print up more moneyDo you realize that this health bill will cost us a trillion or so and we could have solved it by giving everyone of those 30-40 million a million dollars each so they could purchase what ever health plan they wanted.
That's true I doubt if there is a health care program anywhere that is what it's cracked up to be. People forget that all this has to be paid for somehow and there is no other specy that uses money. :smile::smile::smile:
Fascist is one of the milder epithets they have called Obama, they have called him much worse (like Muslim terrorist, for instance).
Quite so, Cliffy, conservatives miss the shoot from the hip, shoot first ask questions later philosophy of Bush. They look back nostalgically at the Iraq invasion and wish Obama would start a few of those.
Well, my advice to them is, have patience. Next time a Republican is elected the president, no doubt he will start a war or two, and conservatives will have a chance for glory again (glory obtained by the poor blacks and Hispanics fighting in the war, of course, conservatives themselves are too valuable to fight in any war).
But you are right of course. The world does not need a bully that USA had become during the Bush era (and it really burns up many conservatives, that Obama does not share Bush’s shoot from the hip attitude, that is just one of the reason for their visceral hatred of Obama).
Previous eight years were the greatest years ever in America's history. All the problems (unemployment, banking crises etc.) started the day Obama was elected. At least so say the Republicans and teabaggers.
When Republicans were in power, the cut funding to Planned Parenthood and massively funded abstinence only sex education. They got rid of the Mexico policy, which used to help poor women in the third world countries with contraception. How did any of that lead to job creation?
Or Republicans can spend money on anything and everything they wish, on any far right wing cause (Republicans increased spending each and every year they were in power), but as soon as Democrats come in power they are measured by a different yardstick? I assume when Republicans increase the deficit, it is a good deficit, but when Democrats spend to stave off the depression (brought on by the crazy Republican policies), that is to be condemned.
No!!! Surely Godly, saintly republicans won't do that.
Nonsense, it is always time for political payback, and payback is a bitch. looks like you can dish it out, when your side is in power. But you can't take it, when your side is out of power.
You mean become a Nazi, become a Communist, become a Muslim terrorist? Because that is what Obama is, according to many Republicans.
That is just one of the reason why Republicans hate him with such a visceral passion. Things were going great under Republican rule, insurance companies ruled the health care in USA with an iron fist, could increase charges however much they wish, could drop anybody whey wanted from coverage, could make money by the barrelful. And of course Republican politicians got their cut. All that threatens to change under the new legislation.
Stimulus package was necessary to stave off the depression and the Republican politicians know it (even if Republican supporters don’t). That is why they passed the Bush stimulus package in a hurry, it was pushed through in a matter of days, with overwhelming Republican support.
[FONT="][/FONT] Unfortunately, when it came to Obama stimulus package, politics intervened, as usual. Even though Republicans knew that refusal to pass the stimulus package will probably result in a depression, they also knew that it would enhance their chances at reelection. So they were willing to risk a depression, if that will get them reelected.
Really? Then why didn't the Republicans do it when they were in power for 12 years? But I suppose that would have cut down on the massive election contributions they get from the insurance companies.