New Jobs

[Rocknwolf]

The conservatard liars on the reich wing media circuit, as well as the posters here will whine, cry and deny, but it looks like Obama care is creating jobs, not killing jobs, and costs will be contained when the thieving insurance companies have to set plans and prices for review. For the millions of citizens who will benefit from Obamacare, thank you and 4 more years, and don't let the idiots get you down.


http://www.politicususa.com/en/obamacare-heathcare-booming

 

[jasmin]

Do you have even the basic understanding of what is implemented when with obamacare? Any at all? If so, you would understand that the negatives are all set to hit after the 2012 elections. Of course, that would require thinking and understanding the 'job creation' numbers fantasies.

Here's an easy one. Do you have group insurance? Have your rates gone up or down since obamacare was signed?

You are a midless obama drone.

 

[Rocknwolf]

Do you have even the basic understanding of what is implemented when with obamacare? Any at all? If so, you would understand that the negatives are all set to hit after the 2012 elections. Of course, that would require thinking and understanding the 'job creation' numbers fantasies.

Here's an easy one. Do you have group insurance? Have your rates gone up or down since obamacare was signed?

You are a midless obama drone.

Do you have any idea besides hating the president and liberals? Would you take a job that didn't have healthcare benefits? But you and the dozens of other numbskulls think you shouldn't have to buy health insurance? Your labor buys it from the employer, and if you are self employed, unemployed etc, why should I have to pay if you use the ER and won't pay? Goddamn, conservatards are so dense that their blind support for idiots like bush cheney have diminished what little cognitive function they ever had.

 

[ThisIsYorCaptnSpkng]

Do you have any idea besides hating the president and liberals? Would you take a job that didn't have healthcare benefits? But you and the dozens of other numbskulls think you shouldn't have to buy health insurance? Your labor buys it from the employer, and if you are self employed, unemployed etc, why should I have to pay if you use the ER and won't pay? Goddamn, conservatards are so dense that their blind support for idiots like bush cheney have diminished what little cognitive function they ever had.

I'm not sure what in the hell you're stammering here, except for your question about "Would you take a job that didn't have healthcare benefits?"

Thanks to Obama and the Dematurds, there are at least 14 million unemployed folks out there that would be thrilled to have a job, period. That would be somewhere over 9%, and I'll bet you and your wackedout leftwing links still buy his promise to that unemployment won't reach 8% if we'll just let him spend a trillion dollars on shovel ready jobs. Yeah, 600,000 jobs he promised. And, Pelosi rambled on about 400,000 "almost immediate" jobs with the program you're touting in your OP.

Seriously, when will you every make contact with reality?

 

[Vagitarian]

Do you have even the basic understanding of what is implemented when with obamacare? Any at all? If so, you would understand that the negatives are all set to hit after the 2012 elections. Of course, that would require thinking and understanding the 'job creation' numbers fantasies.

Here's an easy one. Do you have group insurance? Have your rates gone up or down since obamacare was signed?

You are a midless obama drone.

Without getting into the argument let me say that my rates went down but co-pays for certain services have gone up. I'm not in the mood to dissct it but at this point I'll call it a wash. The plus has been that I am allowed to keep my 25 yr old college daughter on the plan for another year. I keep hearing people say how this guy is destroying our country. As I've said, I will not vote for him again because he's become a total flip-flopper like McPalin, saying whatever he needs to say to appeal to a new voter. However, all in all, I'm much better off since he became president than I was before. Maybe it's 'just because' but so far so good - I'll take it.

I still hate him fopr his stance on state border closings and medimar. Re stateborder closings: If a state (like the communist governors of Texas and California have done) can make a law INCLUDING illegals in their education system - then why cant they EXCLUDE them from other services?

 

[Rocknwolf]

I'm not sure what in the hell you're stammering here, except for your question about "Would you take a job that didn't have healthcare benefits?"

Thanks to Obama and the Dematurds, there are at least 14 million unemployed folks out there that would be thrilled to have a job, period. That would be somewhere over 9%, and I'll bet you and your wackedout leftwing links still buy his promise to that unemployment won't reach 8% if we'll just let him spend a trillion dollars on shovel ready jobs. Yeah, 600,000 jobs he promised. And, Pelosi rambled on about 400,000 "almost immediate" jobs with the program you're touting in your OP.

Seriously, when will you every make contact with reality?

About the same time you admit that TAXCUTS DON'T CREATE JOBS !!!!
Even after the bushwhackers debacle of taxcuts, Obama then continued them and even expanded them with 1/3 of his stimulus plan going to, you guessed it TAXCUTS. They don't work, so get over Obamacare, it is the law, and when the greedy corporatists get off their collective asses, the economy will start to improve. All excess profits should be taxed at the highest possible rate, and then the greedy bastards may decide to grow their businesses. The only ones who don't understand this are the conservatard robots of the fat limbaugh fox news reich wing.

 

[ThisIsYorCaptnSpkng]

About the same time you admit that TAXCUTS DON'T CREATE JOBS !!!!
Even after the bushwhackers debacle of taxcuts, Obama then continued them and even expanded them with 1/3 of his stimulus plan going to, you guessed it TAXCUTS. They don't work, so get over Obamacare, it is the law, and when the greedy corporatists get off their collective asses, the economy will start to improve. All excess profits should be taxed at the highest possible rate, and then the greedy bastards may decide to grow their businesses. The only ones who don't understand this are the conservatard robots of the fat limbaugh fox news reich wing.

OK, I know you're no Milton Friedman, but could you please 'splain to us how this works. You would take away their money, and expect them to grow their business. Huh??

BTW, what exactly are "excessive" profits, and who decides which they are?

It's estimated a trillion dollars of corporate profits sit overseas because they would face your confiscatory taxing if they were brought back to the US. And, guess what...no small portion of them are owned by companies operated by good demoturd supporting CEOs.

 

[tinkrbelle]

Without getting into the argument let me say that my rates went down but co-pays for certain services have gone up. I'm not in the mood to dissct it but at this point I'll call it a wash. The plus has been that I am allowed to keep my 25 yr old college daughter on the plan for another year. I keep hearing people say how this guy is destroying our country. As I've said, I will not vote for him again because he's become a total flip-flopper like McPalin, saying whatever he needs to say to appeal to a new voter. However, all in all, I'm much better off since he became president than I was before. Maybe it's 'just because' but so far so good - I'll take it.

I still hate him fopr his stance on state border closings and medimar. Re stateborder closings: If a state (like the communist governors of Texas and California have done) can make a law INCLUDING illegals in their education system - then why cant they EXCLUDE them from other services?

Good post. Both my premiums and co-pays have gone way up-- but that has been happening every year for the past 20+ years-- you can't blame it all on obama for that. There are also new laws that went into efect - like the pre-existing coverage clause- you cant be denied now.
But the fact is the insurance companies are making huge ca$$sh out of the healthcare system of our country.

 

[tinkrbelle]

OK, I know you're no Milton Friedman, but could you please 'splain to us how this works. You would take away their money, and expect them to grow their business. Huh??

BTW, what exactly are "excessive" profits, and who decides which they are?

It's estimated a trillion dollars of corporate profits sit overseas because they would face your confiscatory taxing if they were brought back to the US. And, guess what...no small portion of them are owned by companies operated by good demoturd supporting CEOs.

They have been sitting/and going overseas for decades and under every Prez. Why should the corporations get these huge tax breaks? Dont they make $$ here in the US of off the US citizens? Don't their CEO's rake in million$$ in salaries? Should we give them a tax exemption, yet not the private citizens who hold overseas bank accounts? How hypocritical is that.

"excessive" as defined by Webster: going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit or degree; More than is necessary, normal, or desirable; immoderate.
Tell me-- " For the quarter, UnitedHealth said net income increased to $1.12 billion, or 99 cents per share,"--is that excessive or normal? You tell me.
Is a CEO's salary of $40million, while he laid of 10,000 workers-- is it normal or excessive?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/07/20/us-unitedhealth-idUSTRE66J1IR20100720.

 

[ThisIsYorCaptnSpkng]

They have been sitting/and going overseas for decades and under every Prez. Why should the corporations get these huge tax breaks? Dont they make $$ here in the US of off the US citizens? Don't their CEO's rake in million$$ in salaries? Should we give them a tax exemption, yet not the private citizens who hold overseas bank accounts? How hypocritical is that.

"excessive" as defined by Webster: going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit or degree; More than is necessary, normal, or desirable; immoderate.
Tell me-- " For the quarter, UnitedHealth said net income increased to $1.12 billion, or 99 cents per share,"--is that excessive or normal? You tell me.
Is a CEO's salary of $40million, while he laid of 10,000 workers-- is it normal or excessive?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/07/20/us-unitedhealth-idUSTRE66J1IR20100720.

So, who sits in judgement of your definition?

As to your question for me: It depends whether if I'm a shareholder. Otherwise, I don't care. Corporations are not intended to be government jobs programs.

 

[jasmin]

Do you have any idea besides hating the president and liberals? Would you take a job that didn't have healthcare benefits? But you and the dozens of other numbskulls think you shouldn't have to buy health insurance? Your labor buys it from the employer, and if you are self employed, unemployed etc, why should I have to pay if you use the ER and won't pay? Goddamn, conservatards are so dense that their blind support for idiots like bush cheney have diminished what little cognitive function they ever had.

You didn't answer my question and conveniently ignore the facts that the burden of this reform will come after 2012. Businesses know it.

No, I would not take a job without healthcare benefits. With a spouse with severe and chronic healthcare issues, this is part of my pay package I greatly value. We have chosen less pay and fewer perks overall to have a rich healthcare plan. Of course that will be taxed too, yet if we just had more vacation time that it wouldn't be. The government should not be allowed to force people to purchase insurance anymore than they should be able to force people to lose weight, exercise, or eat properly - - all that we pay for. THIS is what libbies refuse to get, that government control knows no bounds.

 

[jasmin]

So, who sits in judgement of your definition?

As to your question for me: It depends whether if I'm a shareholder. Otherwise, I don't care. Corporations are not intended to be government jobs programs.

Agreed. And corporations are not charities nor are they for the good of society unless you think we would all be better off with them owned and operated by the government. Corporations are a business. They employ people when it is profitable to do so. They make products when it is profitable to do so. In order to build or to get tax breaks, they will make concessions for society. If you have something to offer, you can negotiate a better package. But you as an employee are not their family and are only worth what you can deliver to the company.

 

[jasmin]

Good post. Both my premiums and co-pays have gone way up-- but that has been happening every year for the past 20+ years-- you can't blame it all on obama for that. There are also new laws that went into efect - like the pre-existing coverage clause- you cant be denied now.
But the fact is the insurance companies are making huge ca$$sh out of the healthcare system of our country.

Do you know how many plans for small groups and individuals have been cancelled as a result? Do you understand that you will pay the cost of insuring everyone, regardless of their health, even if their health condition is a result of personal neglect?

And Vag, my kids in college can buy medical for less than $1000 a year through the school. They are only covered for medical, not dental or vision, and the cost is quite high for the benefit. The people this really benefits are kids with no jobs and not in school, living in mommy's basement.

 

[jasmin]

Without getting into the argument let me say that my rates went down but co-pays for certain services have gone up. I'm not in the mood to dissct it but at this point I'll call it a wash. The plus has been that I am allowed to keep my 25 yr old college daughter on the plan for another year. I keep hearing people say how this guy is destroying our country. As I've said, I will not vote for him again because he's become a total flip-flopper like McPalin, saying whatever he needs to say to appeal to a new voter. However, all in all, I'm much better off since he became president than I was before. Maybe it's 'just because' but so far so good - I'll take it.

I still hate him fopr his stance on state border closings and medimar. Re stateborder closings: If a state (like the communist governors of Texas and California have done) can make a law INCLUDING illegals in their education system - then why cant they EXCLUDE them from other services?

Whether you want to dissect it or not, the national picture is that employee costs are going up. None of this is free.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/employees-health-insurance-costs/story?id=14701482
•Higher costs for dependents. The health care reform law enacted last year requires health insurers to allow adult children to remain on their parents' health insurance plan until age 26. More than 2.3 million young adults have been added to insurers' plans since the law was enacted, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Increasing premiums for dependent coverage is one way employers are dealing that that requirement, says Beth Umland, research director for health and benefits at Mercer.

 

[jasmin]

More reality of the cost of the health care takeover:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypi...surance-premiums-this-year-blame-obamacare/2/
ObamaCare is to blame for much of these impending increases. Richard Foster, the Chief Actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), reports that America will spend an additional $311 billion on health care in the next decade because of the law.

CMS estimates the growth in health insurance costs will increase 10 extra percentage points in 2014 because of ObamaCare — a 14% increase, versus 3.5% without the law.

In 2020, the net cost of health insurance is estimated to be $271 billion. Without ObamaCare, that number would have been $248.7 billion — a difference of more than $22 billion.

Consider the so-called “slacker mandate,” which requires all family policies to cover adult children until they turn 26. According to a recent federal report, nearly 1 million young adults gained health coverage this year thanks to the mandate.Of course, adding them to their parents’ policies isn’t free. Towers Watson found that the rise in young-adult enrollment was responsible for premium increases of as much as 3% at many firms. Even the feds admit that the mandate means that families will pay more. According to HHS, each new dependent will tack on an additional $3,380 to their parents’ insurance costs this year. By 2013, extra dependents will add $3,690 to families’ annual insurance bills.
Compared to about $100 a year if you bought the coverage yourself for a college student!

Oh, and you think this is great anyway because more are covered? Go to any medical conference discussing health care reform and they will tell you, yes, people will have coverage but it is not good coverage. And what obama doesn't want you to know is that you are likely to be forced into this poor coverage group too.


Slathering federal mandates on top of existing state mandates will drive costs even higher — and thereby make coverage unaffordable for more people. Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathan Gruber — a supporter and architect of ObamaCare — estimates that a 10% hike in the cost of the essential benefits package could increase the number of uninsured by 1.5 million.

Anyone with common sense knows you cannot spend like this, force insurance companies, and cover more people without a very high cost and cuts to the quality of care the majority of Americans receive. We also know these extra costs, regulations, and burdens on businesses do not create jobs.

 

[tinkrbelle]

More reality of the cost of the health care takeover:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypi...surance-premiums-this-year-blame-obamacare/2/
ObamaCare is to blame for much of these impending increases. Richard Foster, the Chief Actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), reports that America will spend an additional $311 billion on health care in the next decade because of the law.

CMS estimates the growth in health insurance costs will increase 10 extra percentage points in 2014 because of ObamaCare — a 14% increase, versus 3.5% without the law.

In 2020, the net cost of health insurance is estimated to be $271 billion. Without ObamaCare, that number would have been $248.7 billion — a difference of more than $22 billion.

Consider the so-called “slacker mandate,” which requires all family policies to cover adult children until they turn 26. According to a recent federal report, nearly 1 million young adults gained health coverage this year thanks to the mandate.Of course, adding them to their parents’ policies isn’t free. Towers Watson found that the rise in young-adult enrollment was responsible for premium increases of as much as 3% at many firms. Even the feds admit that the mandate means that families will pay more. According to HHS, each new dependent will tack on an additional $3,380 to their parents’ insurance costs this year. By 2013, extra dependents will add $3,690 to families’ annual insurance bills.
Compared to about $100 a year if you bought the coverage yourself for a college student!

Oh, and you think this is great anyway because more are covered? Go to any medical conference discussing health care reform and they will tell you, yes, people will have coverage but it is not good coverage. And what obama doesn't want you to know is that you are likely to be forced into this poor coverage group too.

Slathering federal mandates on top of existing state mandates will drive costs even higher — and thereby make coverage unaffordable for more people. Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathan Gruber — a supporter and architect of ObamaCare — estimates that a 10% hike in the cost of the essential benefits package could increase the number of uninsured by 1.5 million.

Anyone with common sense knows you cannot spend like this, force insurance companies, and cover more people without a very high cost and cuts to the quality of care the majority of Americans receive. We also know these extra costs, regulations, and burdens on businesses do not create jobs.

And what kind of coverage does $100 buy you? "people will have coverage but it is not good coverage". You are contradicting yourself.

 

[tinkrbelle]

Do you know how many plans for small groups and individuals have been cancelled as a result? Do you understand that you will pay the cost of insuring everyone, regardless of their health, even if their health condition is a result of personal neglect?

And Vag, my kids in college can buy medical for less than $1000 a year through the school. They are only covered for medical, not dental or vision, and the cost is quite high for the benefit. The people this really benefits are kids with no jobs and not in school, living in mommy's basement.

I am paying for it now in monthly premiums!! Here is a typical corporate sponsored plan:
Premium: $300 per month- up over 65% from 10 year ago.
Co-pays- $25-
Drug co-pays- $30
co-insurance- (if you have chronic disease and many doctors visits) - $300+ per month .
And this is only if you STAY in the Network-- try going out of the network or drs ordering any "unapproved" tests/etc and its more than double of the amount above.

Look, everyone has to pay for OUR US healthcare in some way-- you either pay it comming(now) or going(taxes). No one is going to get any of it for free.

 

[jasmin]

And what kind of coverage does $100 buy you? "people will have coverage but it is not good coverage". You are contradicting yourself.

That was a typo and should have read $1000 a year if you buy it through the college compared to over $3000 through obamacare, which is what I said in the previous post. It is quite good, comprehensive medical insurance for healthy college age kids. BTW, during a gap in coverage when one was not on my insurance and between masters and doctoral degrees, I bought him insurance for a little over $100 a month from a blues plan that was also quite good. You don't need much when you are young and healthy beyond something to cover catastrophic injury or illness though. What is provided by the government always costs more. Always.

 

[jasmin]

I am paying for it now in monthly premiums!! Here is a typical corporate sponsored plan:
Premium: $300 per month- up over 65% from 10 year ago.
Co-pays- $25-
Drug co-pays- $30
co-insurance- (if you have chronic disease and many doctors visits) - $300+ per month .
And this is only if you STAY in the Network-- try going out of the network or drs ordering any "unapproved" tests/etc and its more than double of the amount above.

Look, everyone has to pay for OUR US healthcare in some way-- you either pay it comming(now) or going(taxes). No one is going to get any of it for free.

Yes and your costs will skyrocket and quality diminish thanks to obamacare. Companies absorb a hefty part of the monthly costs so how does hitting them with greater costs create jobs? Nonsensical at best.

The so called coverage the government will move more and more people into is worse than the medicaid of today.

 

[Breakingnews]

Yes and your costs will skyrocket and quality diminish thanks to obamacare. Companies absorb a hefty part of the monthly costs so how does hitting them with greater costs create jobs? Nonsensical at best.

The so called coverage the government will move more and more people into is worse than the medicaid of today.

Yuu have the GOP/Limbaugh talking points down very well.

Try thinking for yourself.