Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 161 to 164 of 164

Thread: Official Gameday Thread: Mandate vs. America, Thursday 10 AM

  1. #161
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4504253]Congrats on the new job then.....assuming when you said in the past you were under DHS you were being honest. Was a while ago though, so to be expected you'd have moved up and out in the world. So congrats!



    Aye, I'm well aware of whats offered, thanks. It's still a pretty decent plan, generally speaking. $450 for a family (4-4+ indiviudals?) is $100/month per, thats not bad at all.



    I link from FOX and CNN in about equal measure, and make very clear they are the source (90% of which is actually written/researched by the Associated Press). Best of luck proving bias in my sources compared to most here, who pul from all manner of extreme-bias blogs, newssites and similar. FOX and CNN represent mainstream right-and-left news, like it or loathe it.

    As to your source, the worthless stats speak for themselves IMO. When one chooses to make a point that the US spends more on Healthcare than the GDP of the UK, which means exactly squat all without any context or additional apples-to-apples comparison, it tells the tale right off whgat the intention of the piece is, sensationalism based on whatever "scary" stats one can conjure.

    Did you know, for example, that the US spends more of Healthcare in one hour than the entire GDP of Tuvalu!!!!!! OMFG!!!!!! TEAR IT ALL DOWN!!!!! ;)[/QUOTE]



    I hear you and am well aware that it is a good plan.....Being just my wife and i now though you still pay the same family rate as someone with 4-5 + members covered.....

    Was not complaining as i have a generous pension also being covered under the older CSRS plan....

    Federal unions for the most part are not that strong, only a few agencies can atcually negotiate pay......The rest have never had collective barganing rights....

    I suspect a major reason we have been given generous benefits over the years is the fact that the lawmakers in congress get the same and in some instances better benefits than the regular feds...

    The biggest perks in my view for federal employee's is the vacation and sick time given after a few years.....6 weeks vacation and 12 sick days yearly....
    Last edited by jetsmetsrangers; 06-30-2012 at 12:44 PM.

  2. #162
    [QUOTE=jetsmetsrangers;4504391]I hear you and am well aware that it is a good plan.....Being just my wife and i now though you still pay the same family rate as someone with 4-5 + members covered.....

    Was not complaining as i have a generous pension also being covered under the older CSRS plan....

    Federal unions for the most part are not that strong, only a few agencies can atcually negotiate pay......The rest have never had collective barganing rights....

    I suspect a major reason we have been given generous benefits over the years is the fact that the lawmakers in congress get the same and in some instances better benefits than the regular feds...

    The biggest perks in my view for federal employee's is the vacation and sick time given after a few years.....6 weeks vacation and 12 sick days yearly....[/QUOTE]

    Indeed, the power of the Federal Public Service Unions has always been kept in check by the Federal Govt. to some degree, both (R) and (D).

    With that said, total compensation in Federal service is still quite good comparitively these days, nothing to complain about for the majority of Federal workers. Bummer that the plan for a Family only cares if it's you (1 or you (multiple), but in fairness that type of system works for larger families. In a "man + wife" scenario, the wife (in many cases today) is or should/could be, employed herself, getting her own healthcare coverage. All depends, o' course of the individual circumstances and the like.

    As for Congress getting better bennies, well sure....they're congress. They'll always vote themselves the best in Govt. service.

    And aye, the vacation/time off is one of the best perks of Federal Service, I agree.

  3. #163
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,507
    From Politico's Playbook daily email blast today:

    [QUOTE]PALACE INTRIGUE - WashPost A1, "High court speculation: Did Roberts switch vote?" by Robert Barnes and Del Quentin Wilber: "Some wondered whether [Chief Justice John] Roberts originally had joined the court's four conservatives, pointing to oddities in the opinion. The dissent offered by the conservative justices with whom Roberts usually sides in ideological disputes - Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. - read more like an opinion for the court that had been abandoned, said David E. Bernstein, a law professor at George Mason University.

    "The dissent did not engage in a debate with the controlling opinion offered by Roberts, as is usual in Supreme Court judgments. It contained a long section on whether the law can be severed from the individual mandate, unnecessary if a majority had already found the mandate constitutional. It went to great lengths to establish the reasons the four thought the commerce clause did not offer the powers the Obama administration claimed. It was territory that Roberts already had largely covered in his opinion." [url]http://wapo.st/N0VKGz[/url]

    --THE LEAD EDITORIAL of yesterday's Wall Street Journal, "The Roberts Rules," had an even juicier clue: "One telling note is that the dissent refers repeatedly to 'Justice Ginsburg's dissent' and 'the dissent' on the mandate, but of course they should be referring to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's concurrence. This wording and other sources suggest that there was originally a 5-4 majority striking down at least part of ObamaCare, but then the Chief Justice changed his mind.

    "The Justices may never confirm this informed speculation. But if it is true, this is far more damaging to the Court's institutional integrity that the Chief Justice is known to revere than any ruling against ObamaCare. The political class and legal left conducted an extraordinary campaign to define such a decision as partisan and illegitimate. If the Chief Justice capitulated to this pressure, it shows the Court can be intimidated and swayed from its constitutional duties."[/QUOTE]

    :eek: W...T...F. Roberts, you weak-minded bastard.

  4. #164
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4504239]Chief, I will be completely honest here; I do not pretend to understand this law in full. I did not read it completely so I try to rely on analysis through sources I trust. What I can say with certainty is that I fully believe that had this bill (now a law) not been crafted, nothing would have been done. Nothing.

    Sure the political parties would have mentioned costs during some debates and pandered for votes where it could help them. Since Clinton tried to take a stab at it, nothing serious was attempted.

    You may very well be right about the negatives to this law; or the people in favor may be correct. What I believe is that inaction is inexcusable and many, many people are suffering (and dying) with the status quo[/QUOTE]

    I agree with you to a point. The problem is the size of the ACA bill. Everytime we try "comprehensive" anything it is usually a disaster. Bush tried comprehensive immigration reform and it failed. The ACA has some good aspects that should be maintained. There were some gaps in health law that needed to be addressed. Many States individually addressed these things but some didn't. Portability of insurance for one thing is a very good thing. Apparently in some states insurance companies can drop a client after they got sick. ACA addressed that which is a good thing. NY and NJ already had laws on the books against that practice so it doesn't effect most of us. We need medical tort reform of some sort. That insurance cost is driving the cost of medical care in a significant way.

    This concept of covering kids through age 26 is not necessary as a mandate. My plan has had that coverage for years because we chose as a company to purchase that rider. The ACA does not allow for small businesses to bundle together for larger group rates. That is a law that should be passed.

    The worst part about the ACA is that is the mandatory coverage for preexisting conditions for people that dont have continuous insurance. That mandate defeats the purpose of buying insurance in advance. The tax penalty is not high enough to force people to buy because the tax is 1/10th of the cost of an insurance plan. People will pay the tax and simply grab insurance when they get sick. That will drive up the cost of insurance dramatically forcing more and more people to forego insurance and pay the tax. If you can't see how that is a disaster i don't know what to tell you.

    As i said, single payer hospitalization paid through a national sales tax alongside medicaid block grants to States to create free clinics would have been better. Then folks could purchase much cheaper private insurance to cover the gaps.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us