- 5,490
- 14
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2007
An interesting read.
Congress clears historic health care bill...
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by superantigen,
- Start date
- 2,409
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2007
To answer the question that was posed about the health care bill not being accepted by those who passed it.
Why would those people need the health care bill when those in Congress already HAVE universal health care that's paid for by our taxes?
Why would those people need the health care bill when those in Congress already HAVE universal health care that's paid for by our taxes?
- 8,408
- 41
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2009
He seems like a cool guy. Roomed with Jon Stewart
- 900
- 48
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2002
that's the sexiest thing ive ever read. if the next elections has a candidate saying those words, i dont care if its a democrat, republican, independent, teabagger...whatever, they got my vote. i'm obviously very ignorant of foreign policy and how it affects us as a country, but just from a money standpoint, let's get out of this hole forreealsssOriginally Posted by AirUpHere23
I read this comment on Yahoo in relation to this article http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100325/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1335
WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV THE U.S. PRESIDENT GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH?
"My Fellow Americans: As you all know, the defeat of the Iraq regime has been completed. Since congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq is complete. This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq. This action will be complete within 30 days. It is now time to begin the reckoning.
Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short. The United Kingdom, Spain, Bulgaria, Australia and Poland are some of the countries listed there. The other list contains every one not on the first list. Most of the world's nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 ceases immediately and indefinitely. The money saved during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war. THEN EVERY YEAR THERE AFTER IT'll GO TO OUR SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM SO IT WONT GO BROKE IN 20 YEARS.
The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world Hell holes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption.Need help with a famine ? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France .
I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France , Germany , and Russia .. Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well. A special note to our neighbors. Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not pissing us off for a change.
Mexico is also on List 2 its president and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. I will have a couple extra thousand tanks and infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am going to put 'em? Yep, border security. Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty - starting now.
We are tired of the one-way highway. Immediately, we'll be drilling for oil in Alaska- which will take care of this country's oil needs for decades to come. If you're an environmentalist who opposes this decision, I refer you to List 2 above: pick a country and move there. It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying, 'darn tootin.'
Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet. It is time to eliminate hunger in America It is time to eliminate homelessness in America . To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thank you guys. We owe you and we won't forget.
To the nations on List 2, a final thought: You might want to learn to speak Arabic.
God bless America .. Thank you and good night."
- 8,408
- 41
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2009
He also doesn't know world history. I think Spain learned Arabic before. Funny that he likes the UK over France considering his attitude towards Islam and immigration
- 2,409
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2007
I think I'm dumber for reading that.
Instead of cutting funding for countries who actually need it, why don't we dismantle some of the military bases we have overseas. I'm sure that would save us a lot of money. How about we stop funding Israel if they're not going to actively pursue peace with the Palestinians. How about we stop trying to spread Democracy abroad, and focus on the issues in our own country.
Instead of cutting funding for countries who actually need it, why don't we dismantle some of the military bases we have overseas. I'm sure that would save us a lot of money. How about we stop funding Israel if they're not going to actively pursue peace with the Palestinians. How about we stop trying to spread Democracy abroad, and focus on the issues in our own country.
amazingmrfox
Banned
- 139
- 10
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2009
Now I realize that in any "issue" worth discussing, such as this health care bill, there will always be two schools of thought. That said, I'm willing to admit that the bill isn't perfect, and/or perhaps, close to being perfect--but then again, I ask you, what (bill/policy) is?
So rather than focusing on the negatives, and trying to identify the various hypothetical ways in which this bill will fail, and effectively usher in armageddon and the end of times as we know it, how about we focus on some of the "not-so-talked-about" inclusions that make this bill a step in the right direction; like for example:
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-calorie-count-0326.artmar26,0,3203431.story
So rather than focusing on the negatives, and trying to identify the various hypothetical ways in which this bill will fail, and effectively usher in armageddon and the end of times as we know it, how about we focus on some of the "not-so-talked-about" inclusions that make this bill a step in the right direction; like for example:
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-calorie-count-0326.artmar26,0,3203431.story
Health Care Bill Provision Requires Calorie Counts
Perhaps as soon as next year, you won't be able to indulge in a Grande Peppermint-White Chocolate Mocha from Starbucks without knowing right up front that it contains 470 calories.
It also will be impossible to snack on a Snickers bar without knowing it has 280 calories. And no more mistaking the Quesadilla Explosion Salad at Chili's for health food: The entree's button-busting 1,400 calories will be right there on the menu.
• Pictures: Fast Food Calorie Count
• Database: How many calories are in your restaurant meal?
Tucked within the voluminous federal health care legislation is a provision that requires eateries with 20 or more outlets to post the calorie counts of items on their menu. The legislation applies to vending machines, too.
The provision, championed by U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-3rd District, received little fanfare and was overshadowed by other aspects of the health care overhaul. But public health advocates hailed it as historic and predicted it would become a powerful weapon in the national fight against obesity.
"When people have information about calories, they do make better choices," said Marlene B. Schwartz, deputy director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University.
A study conducted by the center found that people ate considerably less when calorie information was listed on a restaurant's menu. And given that almost 50 percent of all meals are prepared outside the home, "people simply have the right to know this information," Schwartz said.
Everyone knows a Big Mac packs a punch, but the caloric calculus isn't always easy or obvious: Sometimes a salad can contain far more calories than a pizza slice. Under the provisions of the bill, diners will be confronted with the calorie counts of their meals right on the menu, or at the drive-through window; not in tiny writing on the wrapper or on a website they can't access until later.
"People didn't think this had any opportunity for passage at all," DeLauro said. "And now here we are. ... I really do believe it will really change consumers' behavior."
The federal measure is similar to a bill debated in Connecticut last year. That bill, which would have required chains of 15 or more restaurants to post caloric information, passed both houses in the General Assembly only to be vetoed by Gov. M. Jodi Rell.
"It's one of the simplest things we can do," said Betsy Ritter, D- Waterford and co-chairwoman of the legislature's public health committee. "Information and education are the most valuable tools you can bring to an issue like this."
Ritter said state lawmakers had considered raising the bill again in Hartford this year but opted not to because "we have the same players, the same legislature, the same governor." She said she was "pretty excited" when she learned earlier this week that the federal provision had remained in the health care bill.
New York City enacted its calorie-count law two years ago; Philadelphia, Seattle and California have passed similar laws.
DeLauro has pushed for the bill at the federal level for several years, but in the past it had been stalled by opposition from the restaurant industry. However, the industry signed on to the measure this year, saying a blanket federal policy is better than a state-by-state approach.
"Different laws in each state would make it difficult to comply," said Nicole Griffin, executive director of the Connecticut Restaurant Association. "Now we'll have national uniformity, something we've been advocating from the beginning."
Why isn't this particular inclusion being discussed when it has the potential to do so much good. It's no secret that obesity is a problem in this country--health wise and financial wise--and while certain states have ratified laws that require restuarants to show the amount of calories within offered food, the fact is, the majority don't.
Making this provision the law of the land just seems like a great thing to do. I certainly can't think of any way this could "harm" anyone.
I'm sure even Hovkid will approve of this considering the number of occasions I've read of his discontent and disgust with fat/obese people whose "sickeness" is burden to his finances.
- 5,712
- 1,019
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
Mish,
Had a VERY INTERESTING conversation this evening with a CFO for a local business who employs about 100 people total..
I asked him how this health care bill was going to affect the company he works for.
Hetold me that he had run the numbers based upon providing health carefor all of their employees and realized that he could save the company1/2 million dollars by just paying the $2000 per employee penalty andnot offering any coverage at all.
Is this how the government plans on taking over all health care?
Ifit's more cost effective for business to just pay the penalty ratherthan provide coverage, I wonder how many are going to opt for thatstrategy?
Any other business owners out there have a different view?
Would be interested to know.
Hawk
I call BULLCRAP on this only because as a tax preparer I know under Corporation taxation rules, penalties you pay to the Federal govt are a M-1 adjustment meaning it's not DEDUCTIBLE!
What business in their right mind would pay ($2k penalty x 100 employees) $200,000 year after year on Federal penalties and not be able to take a deduction on it? STUPID!
- 10,490
- 229
- Joined
- May 2, 2001
if ya'll dont' think a large majority of companies are going to do a cost benefit analysis on providing health care to their workers vs paying the penalty you're crazy.
people are going to lose their health benefits through work...and will end up having to pay for it themselves
people are going to lose their health benefits through work...and will end up having to pay for it themselves
- 4,958
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
That's an okay strategy but. One of the big things the idiot who wrote that wasn't thinking of was that China would call in all debts we owe them and if that doesn't finish us they will also stop offering cheap labor for major companies like Wal Mart, Nike etc. We'd be +%$+%@.
- 5,712
- 1,019
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
I agree with the cost/benefit so lets take into effect the scenario above. Tax deduction lost - $200,000 x .35 personal service corp tax rate = $70,000.
So $200,000 penalty including $70,000 in taxes so the total is $270,000 for not providing employees a health insurance plan.
So now we look at the averages for employer provided health insurance per employee. Obviously it differs from state to state so based on this report...
- 5,983
- 533
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
Obviously the employer only has to cover their employee so their responsibility is $2,985. $2,985 x 100 employees = $298,500 vs $270,000 = savings of 28,500 for not providing employee benefits. So that guy above will be a jerk and not provide health insurance to his employees whom he had prior just so he can save $28,500? I think most employers would rather provide the insurance.
So bottom line I agree with you that a lot of companies will have to make adjustments to their annual budgets. Large corporations who don't provide health insurance are now mandated to provide or face penalties which I agree does suck. But then again small businesses also receive tax credits up to 50% of the premiums paid for providing health insurance, so you gotta also take that into consideration.
I guess we gotta look at the overall picture which is to help 32 million uninsured Americans. Small sacrifices for the greater good is how I look at it.
The problem is Many companies not only pay for their employees but all their families thus the savings are in the hundreds of thousands not tens of thousands. You think the companies are just going to cut off their families and instead just cover the employee yeah Im sure the employees will love that.
- 2,409
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2007
Hence me feeling dumber for reading that long passage.
I agree with you 100%.
- 1,683
- 39
- Joined
- May 25, 2008
Obviously the employer only has to cover their employee so their responsibility is $2,985. $2,985 x 100 employees = $298,500 vs $270,000 = savings of 28,500 for not providing employee benefits. So that guy above will be a jerk and not provide health insurance to his employees whom he had prior just so he can save $28,500? I think most employers would rather provide the insurance.
So bottom line I agree with you that a lot of companies will have to make adjustments to their annual budgets. Large corporations who don't provide health insurance are now mandated to provide or face penalties which I agree does suck. But then again small businesses also receive tax credits up to 50% of the premiums paid for providing health insurance, so you gotta also take that into consideration.
I guess we gotta look at the overall picture which is to help 32 million uninsured Americans. Small sacrifices for the greater good is how I look at it.
Dude, read the second comment if you still don't believe. He said he could save over 600k if his company stopped providing health insurance. Not only does it provide an incentive to not provide insurance, but it also provides an incentive to not higher people who have families because of the extra cost associated with insuring whole families.
Just look at the headlines today if you still don't believe that this bill will cost companies billions of dollars. Today ATT announced that this bill alone will cost them over a 1 billion dollars. I wonder how much they would save if they cut insurance all together? This bill is going to put a lot of companies in a tough position. Do you insure your current work force and freeze hiring or do you cut insurance in order to expand your business?
This bill will force companies with small margins to drop their employees and many of those employees will have to buy single coverage insurance plans that are becoming more and more expensive. This bill actually increases the price of insurance for people looking for single coverage. Eventually, you'll end up with people paying the fine because they can't afford to py the exorbitant prices associated with getting health insurance.
- 499
- 10
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2003
Dude, read the second comment if you still don't believe. He said he could save over 600k if his company stopped providing health insurance. Not only does it provide an incentive to not provide insurance, but it also provides an incentive to not higher people who have families because of the extra cost associated with insuring whole families.
Just look at the headlines today if you still don't believe that this bill will cost companies billions of dollars. Today ATT announced that this bill alone will cost them over a 1 billion dollars. I wonder how much they would save if they cut insurance all together? This bill is going to put a lot of companies in a tough position. Do you insure your current work force and freeze hiring or do you cut insurance in order to expand your business?
This bill will force companies with small margins to drop their employees and many of those employees will have to buy single coverage insurance plans that are becoming more and more expensive. This bill actually increases the price of insurance for people looking for single coverage. Eventually, you'll end up with people paying the fine because they can't afford to py the exorbitant prices associated with getting health insurance.
I don't think it's worth my time to read the entire bill right now but this is pretty much what I thought would happen. People are just going to end up paying fines and still not receiving health insurance. I really think we're going to be moving towards an economy with more and more entrepreneurs because working for big corporations is starting to have fewer and fewer benefits.
Overall, NOTHING done by our government is truly done in the best interests of it's citizens. Keep your head up and your eyes open out here.
