The department's initial analysis of the proposed rates show consumers will have fewer choices and pay much higher premiums for their health insurance starting in 2014," said Ohio's Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor. Specifically, the study showed that the average monthly cost of insurance would rise from $223 to $420.
The department's initial analysis of the proposed rates show consumers will have fewer choices and pay much higher premiums for their health insurance starting in 2014," said Ohio's Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor. Specifically, the study showed that the average monthly cost of insurance would rise from $223 to $420.
Dozens of lawmakers and aides are so afraid that their health insurance premiums will skyrocket next year thanks to Obamacarethat they are thinking about retiring early or just quitting.
The fear: Government-subsidized premiums will disappear at the end of the year under a provision in the health care law that nudges aides and lawmakers onto the government health care exchanges, which could make their benefits exorbitantly expensive
...
Currently, aides and lawmakers receive their health care under the generous Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. The government subsidizes upward of 75 percent of the premiums for the health insurance plans. In 2014, most Capitol Hill aides and lawmakers are expected to be put onto the exchanges, and there has been no guidance whether the government will subsidize those premiums. This is expected to cause a steep spike in health insurance costs.
They are going to (quietly) vote a subsidy for Congress and congressional aides.
That is nice, isn't it?
0
Dozens of lawmakers and aides are so afraid that their health insurance premiums will skyrocket next year thanks to Obamacarethat they are thinking about retiring early or just quitting.
The fear: Government-subsidized premiums will disappear at the end of the year under a provision in the health care law that nudges aides and lawmakers onto the government health care exchanges, which could make their benefits exorbitantly expensive
...
Currently, aides and lawmakers receive their health care under the generous Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. The government subsidizes upward of 75 percent of the premiums for the health insurance plans. In 2014, most Capitol Hill aides and lawmakers are expected to be put onto the exchanges, and there has been no guidance whether the government will subsidize those premiums. This is expected to cause a steep spike in health insurance costs.
I recently told the Short Hills Surgery Center in Millburn,New Jersey to go to hell with their outrageous charges.I will not support any more contributions to the Knesset.
0
I recently told the Short Hills Surgery Center in Millburn,New Jersey to go to hell with their outrageous charges.I will not support any more contributions to the Knesset.
The department's initial analysis of the proposed rates show consumers will have fewer choices and pay much higher premiums for their health insurance starting in 2014," said Ohio's Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor. Specifically, the study showed that the average monthly cost of insurance would rise from $223 to $420.
Hilarious, considering that the plan was created and embraced by conservatives since 1989......until of course it was deemed 'unconstitional' sometime in 2009 by Republican senators...Hmm, I wonder why?
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
Average increase: 88%
The department's initial analysis of the proposed rates show consumers will have fewer choices and pay much higher premiums for their health insurance starting in 2014," said Ohio's Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor. Specifically, the study showed that the average monthly cost of insurance would rise from $223 to $420.
Hilarious, considering that the plan was created and embraced by conservatives since 1989......until of course it was deemed 'unconstitional' sometime in 2009 by Republican senators...Hmm, I wonder why?
Way too easy again. 14 you conveniently put 1994 as a starting point.
The GOP introduced a bill back in 1993 that had 20 Republican co-sponsors to it including current Senators Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grassley. They are remarkably pretty darn similar.
Way too easy again. 14 you conveniently put 1994 as a starting point.
The GOP introduced a bill back in 1993 that had 20 Republican co-sponsors to it including current Senators Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grassley. They are remarkably pretty darn similar.
Once again, an uninformed conservative makes the mistake of comparing a
non-existent teaser rate, offered to a non-existent hypothetical healthy
young person, to real rates for real people. Avik Roy already made this
mistake and was called out for his disingenuity.
this story was discredited weeks ago. But like most conservatives,
these guys don't care about pesky facts, as long it makes Obama look
bad. So they just keep recycling it.
Much of the increasing costs are going to red states like ohio and
florida, where they did everything they could to fight Obamacare, and
haven't signed on to any of the cost saving measures because the
governors are teabaggers.
Even Jan Brewer in Arizona figured it out. Want to provide health care cheaper? You'd better get with the program.
0
Once again, an uninformed conservative makes the mistake of comparing a
non-existent teaser rate, offered to a non-existent hypothetical healthy
young person, to real rates for real people. Avik Roy already made this
mistake and was called out for his disingenuity.
this story was discredited weeks ago. But like most conservatives,
these guys don't care about pesky facts, as long it makes Obama look
bad. So they just keep recycling it.
Much of the increasing costs are going to red states like ohio and
florida, where they did everything they could to fight Obamacare, and
haven't signed on to any of the cost saving measures because the
governors are teabaggers.
Even Jan Brewer in Arizona figured it out. Want to provide health care cheaper? You'd better get with the program.
The GOP introduced a bill back in 1993 that had 20 Republican co-sponsors to it including current Senators Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grassley. They are remarkably pretty darn similar.
The 1993 bill had 18 R co-sponsors, The bill, which was not debated or voted upon, was an alternative to President Bill Clinton's plan.
And no they are not "remarkably pretty darn similar" at all.
For example instead of an individual mandate with state exchanges it: establishes a program under which persons with low incomes (and who are not eligible for Medicaid) will receive vouchers to buy insurance through purchasing groups.
Again, I'm not going to argue facts. This whole attempt to say "it was a Republican idea!" is silly and frankly, pathetic.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Cool_Arrow:
The GOP introduced a bill back in 1993 that had 20 Republican co-sponsors to it including current Senators Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grassley. They are remarkably pretty darn similar.
The 1993 bill had 18 R co-sponsors, The bill, which was not debated or voted upon, was an alternative to President Bill Clinton's plan.
And no they are not "remarkably pretty darn similar" at all.
For example instead of an individual mandate with state exchanges it: establishes a program under which persons with low incomes (and who are not eligible for Medicaid) will receive vouchers to buy insurance through purchasing groups.
Again, I'm not going to argue facts. This whole attempt to say "it was a Republican idea!" is silly and frankly, pathetic.
Early looks at insurance offerings on the Obamacare exchanges show that insurers aren’t exactly signing up in droves to sell on the new Small Business Health Option Program exchanges. In some states, just one insurer has signed up for the SHOP exchanges, which are supposed to foster competition and make it easier for small businesses to purchase coverage. The SHOP exchanges exist alongside the exchanges for individuals, which have gotten more attention in preparation for the health law’s rollout
Early looks at insurance offerings on the Obamacare exchanges show that insurers aren’t exactly signing up in droves to sell on the new Small Business Health Option Program exchanges. In some states, just one insurer has signed up for the SHOP exchanges, which are supposed to foster competition and make it easier for small businesses to purchase coverage. The SHOP exchanges exist alongside the exchanges for individuals, which have gotten more attention in preparation for the health law’s rollout
About 40% of Mr. Puzder's employees are part-time and therefore exempt from ObamaCare's coverage mandates. "That percentage of employees will probably go up. Everybody is hiring more part-time employees," he says, though he is quick to add that "we're not firing anyone to hire" part-time workers. "Through attrition, three full-time employees go away and you hire four part-time employees who basically have the same hours."
Mr. Puzder also expects fast-food restaurants to deal with ObamaCare by replacing workers with kiosks. "You're going to go into a fast-food restaurant and order on an iPad or tablet instead of talking to a person because we don't have to pay benefits for any of those things."
About 40% of Mr. Puzder's employees are part-time and therefore exempt from ObamaCare's coverage mandates. "That percentage of employees will probably go up. Everybody is hiring more part-time employees," he says, though he is quick to add that "we're not firing anyone to hire" part-time workers. "Through attrition, three full-time employees go away and you hire four part-time employees who basically have the same hours."
Mr. Puzder also expects fast-food restaurants to deal with ObamaCare by replacing workers with kiosks. "You're going to go into a fast-food restaurant and order on an iPad or tablet instead of talking to a person because we don't have to pay benefits for any of those things."
Here you go. Created by the Heritage Foundation.....
Notice you and those making this comical assertion never actually link to the Heritage plan. Want to guess why?
Well here it is and note that the only similarity is a proximity to ObamaCare's individual mandate. The rest of it is the complete opposite of what ObamaCare has done.
Further, you and those making this comical assertion seem to think the totality of ObamaCare = "individual mandate" Which isn't true.
Want to guess why?
Finally, I find it utterly hysterical that the President's signature legislation is now being described as a "conservative idea" by his supporters. This is beyond comical and again shows that the left has no ideas. You don't even see to realize what this message says about the President and his supporters.
0
Quote Originally Posted by BWS77:
Here you go. Created by the Heritage Foundation.....
Notice you and those making this comical assertion never actually link to the Heritage plan. Want to guess why?
Well here it is and note that the only similarity is a proximity to ObamaCare's individual mandate. The rest of it is the complete opposite of what ObamaCare has done.
Further, you and those making this comical assertion seem to think the totality of ObamaCare = "individual mandate" Which isn't true.
Want to guess why?
Finally, I find it utterly hysterical that the President's signature legislation is now being described as a "conservative idea" by his supporters. This is beyond comical and again shows that the left has no ideas. You don't even see to realize what this message says about the President and his supporters.
Now that we have a link to the Heritage plan on Health Care from 1989, can someone point out the following parts of the proposal all of which are part of ObamaCare:
1. Birth control mandate for insurers
2. Tax on medical devices
3. 700+ billion in cuts to Medicare
4. Food labeling requirements for supermarkets
5. The creation of IPAB to control health care spending
I can't wait to read all about this!
0
Now that we have a link to the Heritage plan on Health Care from 1989, can someone point out the following parts of the proposal all of which are part of ObamaCare:
1. Birth control mandate for insurers
2. Tax on medical devices
3. 700+ billion in cuts to Medicare
4. Food labeling requirements for supermarkets
5. The creation of IPAB to control health care spending
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
