Even More Obamacare Follies

#2,451
#2,451
hog88 said:
How the hell do you think they are subsidizing their premiums? Nothing has changed, just money shuffled.
Click to expand...


Yes, but in theory it should make health care delivery to that segment much cheaper, because it will occur in the primary care setting, as opposed to the hospital. Time will tell if that is the case, but the logic is undeniable and it was a main component of the plan when Romney did it in Mass.
 
#2,452
#2,452
lawgator1 said:
Yes, but in theory it should make health care delivery to that segment much cheaper, because it will occur in the primary care setting, as opposed to the hospital. Time will tell if that is the case, but the logic is undeniable and it was a main component of the plan when Romney did it in Mass.
Click to expand...

Just because it worked in 1 tiny state was no indication it would work nationwide. Also did it ever occur to you that the reason it did work in MA was because of Romney?
 
#2,455
#2,455
lawgator1 said:
Yes, but in theory it should make health care delivery to that segment much cheaper, because it will occur in the primary care setting, as opposed to the hospital. Time will tell if that is the case, but the logic is undeniable and it was a main component of the plan when Romney did it in Mass.
Click to expand...

lol
 
#2,456
#2,456
lawgator1 said:
Yes, but in theory it should make health care delivery to that segment much cheaper, because it will occur in the primary care setting, as opposed to the hospital. Time will tell if that is the case, but the logic is undeniable and it was a main component of the plan when Romney did it in Mass.
Click to expand...

Your fantasy relies solely on those who haven't used preventative care in years to suddenly change their lifestyle and start paying for other care out of pocket. It's ludicrous and you absolutely know it
 
#2,458
#2,458
lawgator1 said:
That doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

Healthcare isn't something that has a one size fits all solution in this country..it should fall under a states rights issue but our federal govt is so bloated and has its hands in so many honey pots, the states can't do what they need to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,463
#2,463
I have read the syllabus on-line, and the Court has emphasized that the holding is extremely narrow. Not that this will stop the Fox machine from going into hyper-overdrive about overclaiming it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,467
#2,467
lawgator1 said:
I have read the syllabus on-line, and the Court has emphasized that the holding is extremely narrow. Not that this will stop the Fox machine from going into hyper-overdrive about overclaiming it.
Click to expand...

It is narrow, but it covers enough employers to be a pretty significant headache for the ACA. I mean, assuming the employer mandate is ever actually enforced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,469
#2,469
lawgator1 said:
I have read the syllabus on-line, and the Court has emphasized that the holding is extremely narrow. Not that this will stop the Fox machine from going into hyper-overdrive about overclaiming it.
Click to expand...

bamawriter said:
It is narrow, but it covers enough employers to be a pretty significant headache for the ACA. I mean, assuming the employer mandate is ever actually enforced.
Click to expand...



I see my comment went right over your head.

QhODPxd.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,470
#2,470
lawgator1 said:
Also, 5-4 on the labor union issue.

This Court is living up to its reputation as extremely political.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure entirely how a decision that says you don't have to pay member dues to a union if you don't want to be in a union is political.

Kinda common sense no?

Or do you think unions that are highly political like SEIU should be able to continue taking money from people that don't want to be a part of them?
 
#2,471
#2,471
Grand Vol said:
I'm not sure entirely how a decision that says you don't have to pay member dues to a union if you don't want to be in a union is political.

Kinda common sense no?

Or do you think unions that are highly political like SEIU should be able to continue taking money from people that don't want to be a part of them?
Click to expand...


I happen to agree with the right on this one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,474
#2,474
Grand Vol said:
Then why is that decision political? Other than the 5-4 split?
Click to expand...


I am not so arrogant as to think that my personal agreement with the anti-labor union folks on this issue renders the Court's decision a-political.

My personal opinion is not based on a political point. I simply happen to agree that people should not be required to associate with anything or anyone in order to be employed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top