Swing Votes
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 31 Mar 2010 23:02 On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:45:23 -0500, Jim Yanik <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> wrote: >"krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in >news:bht2r5p2e8lq6iijf0krju6adonmtl18lc(a)4ax.com: > >> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 20:32:02 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com >> wrote: >> > >>>That deduction is going away. It was meant as an incentive for >>>employers to continue offering Rx benefits for retirees, thus saving >>>Medicare from paying those same benefits. >>> >>>Getting rid of subsidies is fine with me. This change is, however, >>>part of the uncounted cost of Obamacare--they're shifting the full >>>retiree Rx cost to the private sector, who will now have to pay 100 >>>cents of every Rx benefit rather than the 70-odd cents they used to >>>pay. >> >> Not necessarily. Many employers will simply discontinue coverage and >> Obamacare will have to pick up the whole deal. > >Which is exactly what Obama wants. >it leads to "single payer";the gov't,and he knows it. Obama "knowing" his anus from an excavation is debatable, understanding the impact of tax model changes like this - no &*)%%(* way. At least he can and will read the teleprompter correctly, but that is his only skill.
From: Michael A. Terrell on 1 Apr 2010 00:22 JosephKK wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:45:23 -0500, Jim Yanik <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> wrote: > > >"krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in > >news:bht2r5p2e8lq6iijf0krju6adonmtl18lc(a)4ax.com: > > > >> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 20:32:02 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com > >> wrote: > >> > > > >>>That deduction is going away. It was meant as an incentive for > >>>employers to continue offering Rx benefits for retirees, thus saving > >>>Medicare from paying those same benefits. > >>> > >>>Getting rid of subsidies is fine with me. This change is, however, > >>>part of the uncounted cost of Obamacare--they're shifting the full > >>>retiree Rx cost to the private sector, who will now have to pay 100 > >>>cents of every Rx benefit rather than the 70-odd cents they used to > >>>pay. > >> > >> Not necessarily. Many employers will simply discontinue coverage and > >> Obamacare will have to pick up the whole deal. > > > >Which is exactly what Obama wants. > >it leads to "single payer";the gov't,and he knows it. > > Obama "knowing" his anus from an excavation is debatable, understanding > the impact of tax model changes like this - no &*)%%(* way. At least > he can and will read the teleprompter correctly, but that is his only > skill. I think that there should be a $1000 a word tax, on Teleprompter users. -- Lead free solder is Belgium's version of 'Hold my beer and watch this!'
From: dagmargoodboat on 1 Apr 2010 09:43 On Mar 30, 10:20 pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:11:27 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >On Mar 29, 10:57 pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" > ><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 20:32:02 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > ><snip> > > >> >Getting rid of subsidies is fine with me. This change is, however, > >> >part of the uncounted cost of Obamacare--they're shifting the full > >> >retiree Rx cost to the private sector, who will now have to pay 100 > >> >cents of every Rx benefit rather than the 70-odd cents they used to > >> >pay. > > >> Not necessarily. Many employers will simply discontinue coverage and > >> Obamacare will have to pick up the whole deal. > > >Those employers will be fined. There's a fine for not providing > >insurance, $2k IIRC, and another fine for providing health care not > >meeting Obamacare requirements, $3k IIRC. OTOH if you provide too > >good a policy there's a fine for that too--it's taxed at 40%. > > Um, retirees are no longer employees. Oh, I thought you were switching to talking about current employees, where dumping health insurance entirely starts to make sense too. The Senate bill has a big spiel about how health insurance is commerce, they have Constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, and if you don't buy insurance you're hurting suppliers in other states, therefore they can forcibly require you to engage in commerce. (Subtitle F, Sec. 1501(a)(1-2), pg. 320) Here's my parallel theory: we all use toilet paper, toilet paper crosses state lines, and the people who don't buy their own are driving up the price for the rest of us--we're all paying for THEM. So, we need toilet paper insurance. Mandatory, of course. > AIUI, this write-down was for retirees > part-D drug coverage, so they're covered under Medicare anyway. It was for retirees getting drug coverage from their AT&T retirement instead of being foisted on the public Part-D dole. A grateful Medicare Part-D was kicking in a 28% share--better than paying 100%. Obamacare eliminates that incentive. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704100604575145981713658608.html -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: krw on 1 Apr 2010 18:57 On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 06:43:01 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Mar 30, 10:20�pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:11:27 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >On Mar 29, 10:57 pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >> ><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 20:32:02 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> ><snip> >> >> >> >Getting rid of subsidies is fine with me. This change is, however, >> >> >part of the uncounted cost of Obamacare--they're shifting the full >> >> >retiree Rx cost to the private sector, who will now have to pay 100 >> >> >cents of every Rx benefit rather than the 70-odd cents they used to >> >> >pay. >> >> >> Not necessarily. Many employers will simply discontinue coverage and >> >> Obamacare will have to pick up the whole deal. >> >> >Those employers will be fined. �There's a fine for not providing >> >insurance, $2k IIRC, and another fine for providing health care not >> >meeting Obamacare requirements, $3k IIRC. �OTOH if you provide too >> >good a policy there's a fine for that too--it's taxed at 40%. >> >> Um, retirees are no longer employees. > >Oh, I thought you were switching to talking about current employees, >where dumping health insurance entirely starts to make sense too. No, the AT&T write-down is about retirees' drug benefits, AFAICT. >The Senate bill has a big spiel about how health insurance is >commerce, they have Constitutional power to regulate interstate >commerce, and if you don't buy insurance you're hurting suppliers in >other states, therefore they can forcibly require you to engage in >commerce. (Subtitle F, Sec. 1501(a)(1-2), pg. 320) > >Here's my parallel theory: we all use toilet paper, toilet paper >crosses state lines, and the people who don't buy their own are >driving up the price for the rest of us--we're all paying for THEM. >So, we need toilet paper insurance. Mandatory, of course. > > >> �AIUI, this write-down was for retirees >> part-D drug coverage, so they're covered under Medicare anyway. > >It was for retirees getting drug coverage from their AT&T retirement >instead of being foisted on the public Part-D dole. A grateful >Medicare Part-D was kicking in a 28% share--better than paying 100%. Right. IMO, most companies will just dump that coverage and ObamaCare will have to pay the whole tab. >Obamacare eliminates that incentive. > >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704100604575145981713658608.html Yes.
From: krw on 1 Apr 2010 18:58
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 10:14:08 -0400, .p.jm.(a)see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: >On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 06:43:01 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com >wrote: > >>The Senate bill has a big spiel about how health insurance is >>commerce, they have Constitutional power to regulate interstate >>commerce, and if you don't buy insurance you're hurting suppliers in >>other states, therefore they can forcibly require you to engage in >>commerce. (Subtitle F, Sec. 1501(a)(1-2), pg. 320) > > It's amazing - they force individuals in states to buy a >product in their state, from a private company in that state, seeing >as the individual CAN NOT, by law, purchase it outside of the state ( >by law they can not ! ), and call it 'intra-state commerce'. > > If this stands, the Commerce Clause becomes a nullity, a bad >joke, instead of a restraint on the Federal government. The Constitution is null, according to *EVERY* Demonicrats. |