ACA tax now required to Breath

Trump no Genius. He is not dumb by anymeans, though. Left out the real end goal. If you don't want to buy state mandated auto insurance, you can post a secured bond, walk, ride a bike, or stay home. With ACA you cannot live, without a paying a tax, unless the government exemps you, as they have done many groups. Unions, are pissed, because, it is effecting, their plans as well. This a Major Power Grab. I found out today, that President Nixon, supported this in the early 70's, and was quite suprised, for some reason. This is headed to full blown Comunism, if left unchecked much longer, at the current rate. I believe single payer, is the end goal, like medicade/medicare.

supervel45 wrote:Trump no Genius. He is not dumb by anymeans, though. Left out the real end goal. If you don't want to buy state mandated auto insurance, you can post a secured bond, walk, ride a bike, or stay home. With ACA you cannot live, without a paying a tax, unless the government exemps you, as they have done many groups. Unions, are pissed, because, it is effecting, their plans as well. This a Major Power Grab. I found out today, that President Nixon, supported this in the early 70's, and was quite suprised, for some reason. This is headed to full blown Comunism, if left unchecked much longer, at the current rate. I believe single payer, is the end goal, like medicade/medicare.

you posted in the logic thread. take some logic about the uninsured .the uninsured buys a product made by a union company or any co. that pays their insurance . who just payed for the insured?.

DanH wrote:

supervel45 wrote:Trump no Genius. He is not dumb by anymeans, though. Left out the real end goal. If you don't want to buy state mandated auto insurance, you can post a secured bond, walk, ride a bike, or stay home. With ACA you cannot live, without a paying a tax, unless the government exemps you, as they have done many groups. Unions, are pissed, because, it is effecting, their plans as well. This a Major Power Grab. I found out today, that President Nixon, supported this in the early 70's, and was quite suprised, for some reason. This is headed to full blown Comunism, if left unchecked much longer, at the current rate. I believe single payer, is the end goal, like medicade/medicare.

you posted in the logic thread.  take some logic about the uninsured .the uninsured buys a product made by a union company or any co. that pays their insurance . who just payed for the insured?.  

When I went to work at my company, the insurance package was offered as enticement to get good workers, kind of like income.

It also helps the company keep healthy employees to assure attendance and constant output of goods. It wasn't a hand out. It's worked for, earned just like my pay.

No one made the company's years ago offer insurance, it was a pay benefit as such.

the question was-who pays for the insurance? who really pays for it.is the question

IDT-572 wrote:

DanH wrote:

supervel45 wrote:Trump no Genius. He is not dumb by anymeans, though. Left out the real end goal. If you don't want to buy state mandated auto insurance, you can post a secured bond, walk, ride a bike, or stay home. With ACA you cannot live, without a paying a tax, unless the government exemps you, as they have done many groups. Unions, are pissed, because, it is effecting, their plans as well. This a Major Power Grab. I found out today, that President Nixon, supported this in the early 70's, and was quite suprised, for some reason. This is headed to full blown Comunism, if left unchecked much longer, at the current rate. I believe single payer, is the end goal, like medicade/medicare.

you posted in the logic thread.  take some logic about the uninsured .the uninsured buys a product made by a union company or any co. that pays their insurance . who just payed for the insured?.  

When I went to work at my company, the insurance package was offered as enticement to get good workers, kind of like income.

It also helps the company keep healthy employees to assure attendance and constant output of goods. It wasn't a hand out. It's worked for, earned just like my pay.

No one made the company's years ago offer insurance, it was a pay benefit as such.  

                      Good point, it was a pay benifit, that you earned, not  an entittlement. It also was cheaper for a large corporation to afford. When most of our manufacturing jobs went overseas alot of the jobs with good insurance,  went with them, and the insurance vanished. It was not here and the orversea's workforce did not get insurance either, most likey. Part of the reason that they exported the work in the first place, more profit, less hassle and regulation. With the insurance pot drastically reduced, costs went up for small business, to provide it for their employee's. Then enter in under the table labor, added part time jobs, and the insurance pot get's even smaller. It is a viscous circle. Ross Perot had this part of the effect of NAFTA right and said it in 1992 durning the Presidential Debate's, amoung other predictions about the economy that NAFTA would cause. Now alot of people think it is an entittlement, and you cannot hardly afford medical care without it anymore,  because they had it for so long, and that the government, should provide it. ACA is just a welfare tax, government powergrab, that will lead to single payer system, Nanny State from crattle to grave, type government, and maybee worse.

jobs going over sea ! why would corpoations do that?
one could say lower cost of labor.. that sound like corpoations wanted to pay for insurance and other beniefits.

ya, thats whats going to happen , they are all coming back to pay a larger overhead and reduce their profits.
they will show show programs such as O/C isnt needed.

I have provided health insurance in the past for my employees for the reasons Blake posted. Now if the ACA forces me in a different direction then things will change. I have an Obama supporter in the office because her husband is a union guy she has been talking about the agenda and I asked her to not talk about it in the office, her husband is not very smart. Doesn't have a clue about what he is talking about.

Moodyblues wrote:I have provided health insurance in the past for my employees for the reasons Blake posted.  Now if the ACA forces me in a different direction then things will change.  I have an Obama supporter in the office because her husband is a union guy she has been talking about the agenda and I asked her to not talk about it in the office, her husband is not very smart.   Doesn't have a clue about what he is talking about.

"in the past" -the quality of your staff/worker is now lower?

the woman in the office is saying what her husband said and believes it! you say he's not smart, thet the wife agrees with him. whats that say about her? A high quality employees work force

DanH wrote:jobs going over sea ! why would corpoations do that?
one could say lower cost of labor.. that sound like corpoations wanted to pay for insurance and other beniefits.

ya, thats whats going to happen ,  they are all coming back to pay a larger overhead and reduce their profits.
they will show show programs such as O/C isnt needed.  

I think you missed my point? High worker (union and non union) demands as well as high Corporate profit expectations are some of the main reasons the jobs left. NAFTA promoted it, and enabled it, was my point. We need to fix our economy, and try to keep the good jobs we have left, and maybe bring some back, and not further harm the economy, while it is weak with ACA. I am not saying Health Care cost's are not getting out of control, by any means. I am trying to point out some of the cause's of the insurance mess, for debate, and hopefully solutions that may work, will come to light.

Moodyblues wrote:I have provided health insurance in the past for my employees for the reasons Blake posted.  Now if the ACA forces me in a different direction then things will change.  I have an Obama supporter in the office because her husband is a union guy she has been talking about the agenda and I asked her to not talk about it in the office, her husband is not very smart.   Doesn't have a clue about what he is talking about.

She should probably be the first to go if you have to reduce staff.  

supervel45 wrote:

DanH wrote:jobs going over sea ! why would corpoations do that?
one could say lower cost of labor.. that sound like corpoations wanted to pay for insurance and other beniefits.

ya, thats whats going to happen ,  they are all coming back to pay a larger overhead and reduce their profits.
they will show show programs such as O/C isnt needed.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                I think you missed my point? High worker (union and non union) demands as well as high Corporate profit expectations are some of the main reasons the jobs left. NAFTA promoted it, and enabled it, was my point. We need to fix our economy, and try to keep the good jobs we have left, and maybe bring some back, and not further harm the economy, while it is weak with ACA. I am not saying Health Care cost's are not getting out of control, by any means. I am trying to point out some of the cause's of the insurance mess, for debate, and hopefully solutions that may work, will come to light.

lets take the people that have their insurance cancled.
reason is it doesnt meet the requirements. that means under-insured.. what happens if that policy holder has an illness/accident not coverd or fully coverd? Holder could lose his home,bad credit and could ask the state for help. Lets say the state pays some or all for those not insured, who really pays? The tax payer..
wouldnt be better if everyone had insurance? those that are on state welfare or federal welfare (SSI) will still get others to pay their bill.

OK I can't take it any longer, I must vent!

Before I quite my job and during the initial presentation of the ACA (the O'package . .) I talked with employees of a large regional company that created many jobs for the specific region. We discussed some of the ACA's ideas or mandates! The employees I spoke with enjoyed a good paying job with insurance provided by the employer. I ask a simple question, "would you guys work here if no insurance was available?" Most of them hesitated and had a look of concern. The reply most offered, "they will never do that (the employer)." I replied I hope not especially for you guys. I went on to offer a scenario, what if they did! The employer's insurance plan (any employer) can not meet the requirements of the ACA without increasing the employer's insurance expense. The employer understands the final decision will be made by the employee. How's that you say? The employer decides not to insure, now the burden of insurance is with the individual. You will pay either straight forward, payroll deduction or a deduction from your annual tax refund if any. The employer's ( ) insurance expense has now lessened!

It's my opinion, with the requirements of the ACA most small companies are up against the proverbial brick wall! The small company reduces the work force to meet ACA requirements and may not meet ACA requirements again. The cost of insuring employees increase, a small company can't include the expanded cost of insurance and keep a successful bottom line. They close!

I do believe lessening the work force is the direction the country is taking, and doing so the country expects the remaining few to fund it all! I wish there's a "turn around" at some point, I don't believe we'll go much farther into the future without serious difficulty, financial or morally!

In another post on this website I presented the below topic of possible cost of the ACA for individuals and their families.

https://www.429-460.com/t19062-a-leveraging-government

Just food for thought,
Dave.

Moodyblues wrote:I have provided health insurance in the past for my employees for the reasons Blake posted.  Now if the ACA forces me in a different direction then things will change.  I have an Obama supporter in the office because her husband is a union guy she has been talking about the agenda and I asked her to not talk about it in the office, her husband is not very smart.   Doesn't have a clue about what he is talking about.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             You are proably correct about him not having a clue, rank and file mentality is very commond. It is a big problem, in the country as well. I doubt ACA will force you to change for the better of the company and your employee's as a whole? Was this thought of when the bill was passed? Was this the intent of ACA to begin with? Just three easy questions.

LivermoreDave wrote:OK I can't take it any longer, I must vent!

Before I quite my job and during the initial presentation of the ACA (the O'package . .) I talked with employees of a large regional company that created many jobs for the specific region. We discussed some of the ACA's ideas or mandates! The employees I spoke with enjoyed a good paying job with insurance provided by the employer. I ask a simple question, "would you guys work here if no insurance was available?" Most of them hesitated and had a look of concern. The reply most offered, "they will never do that (the employer)." I replied I hope not especially for you guys. I went on to offer a scenario, what if they did! The employer's insurance plan (any employer) can not meet the requirements of the ACA without increasing the employer's insurance expense. The employer understands the final decision will be made by the employee. How's that you say? The employer decides not to insure, now the burden of insurance is with the individual. You will pay either straight forward, payroll deduction or a deduction from your annual tax refund if any. The employer's ( ) insurance expense has now lessened!

It's my opinion, with the requirements of the ACA most small companies are up against the proverbial brick wall! The small company reduces the work force to meet ACA requirements and may not meet ACA requirements again. The cost of insuring employees increase, a small company can't include the expanded cost of insurance and keep a successful bottom line. They close!

I do believe lessening the work force is the direction the country is taking, and doing so the country expects the remaining few to fund it all! I wish there's a "turn around" at some point, I don't believe we'll go much farther into the future without serious difficulty, financial or morally!

In another post on this website I presented the below topic of possible cost of the ACA for individuals and their families.

https://www.429-460.com/t19062-a-leveraging-government

Just food for thought,
Dave.

Dave I don't work at the company you do but the only reason I work where I do is because of the insurance. The insurance makes it a lot nicer to work for a company the provides insurance for sure. I think they need to worry more about the medical cost than insurance and not let them charge what they want to charge for someone with insurance and someone without. The person without insurance or is paying cash will pay less than someone with insurance I have seen it many times before. Then just maybe more people could afford insurance and insurance companies would not have to charge so much for coverage. I think this government we have need to step back and take a look the real problems with the medical system it not insurance it how it is run in my book.

DanH wrote:

supervel45 wrote:

DanH wrote:jobs going over sea ! why would corpoations do that?
one could say lower cost of labor.. that sound like corpoations wanted to pay for insurance and other beniefits.

ya, thats whats going to happen ,  they are all coming back to pay a larger overhead and reduce their profits.
they will show show programs such as O/C isnt needed.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                I think you missed my point? High worker (union and non union) demands as well as high Corporate profit expectations are some of the main reasons the jobs left. NAFTA promoted it, and enabled it, was my point. We need to fix our economy, and try to keep the good jobs we have left, and maybe bring some back, and not further harm the economy, while it is weak with ACA. I am not saying Health Care cost's are not getting out of control, by any means. I am trying to point out some of the cause's of the insurance mess, for debate, and hopefully solutions that may work, will come to light.

lets take the people that have their insurance cancled.
reason is it doesnt meet the requirements. that means under-insured.. what happens if that policy holder has an illness/accident not coverd or fully coverd? Holder could lose his home,bad credit and could ask the state for help. Lets say the state pays some or all for those not insured, who really pays? The tax payer..
wouldnt be better if everyone had insurance? those that are on state welfare or federal welfare (SSI) will still get others to pay their bill.  

Dan, I don't know how old you are but I'm going to guess low twenties.

lets take the people that have their insurance cancled.
reason is it doesnt meet the requirements. that means under-insured..

No, me and my wife are both past childbearing years and our children are grown. Neither of us need birth control, pregnancy coverage, well child health care, etc. We are not underinsured if we don't have this coverage. Bozo says we need it.

what happens if that policy holder has an illness/accident not coverd or fully coverd?

Do you not have the option to pay for the coverage you want? Why should the government tell you how much to buy?

Lets say the state pays some or all for those not insured, who really pays? The tax payer..
wouldnt be better if everyone had insurance?

People that don't have insurance now, aren't going to pay for it just because its the law. The only thing ACA did was allow them to sign up for it once they get sick.

those that are on state welfare or federal welfare (SSI) will still get others to pay their bill.  

So what is different other than the government collecting premiums for law abiding, tax paying citizens for policies that they don't want.

What are you going to do when they tell you that you have to buy 1000 bushels of corn per year?

DanH wrote:

supervel45 wrote:

DanH wrote:jobs going over sea ! why would corpoations do that?
one could say lower cost of labor.. that sound like corpoations wanted to pay for insurance and other beniefits.

ya, thats whats going to happen ,  they are all coming back to pay a larger overhead and reduce their profits.
they will show show programs such as O/C isnt needed.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                I think you missed my point? High worker (union and non union) demands as well as high Corporate profit expectations are some of the main reasons the jobs left. NAFTA promoted it, and enabled it, was my point. We need to fix our economy, and try to keep the good jobs we have left, and maybe bring some back, and not further harm the economy, while it is weak with ACA. I am not saying Health Care cost's are not getting out of control, by any means. I am trying to point out some of the cause's of the insurance mess, for debate, and hopefully solutions that may work, will come to light.

lets take the people that have their insurance cancled.
reason is it doesnt meet the requirements. that means under-insured.. what happens if that policy holder has an illness/accident not coverd or fully coverd? Holder could lose his home,bad credit and could ask the state for help. Lets say the state pays some or all for those not insured, who really pays? The tax payer..
wouldnt be better if everyone had insurance? those that are on state welfare or federal welfare (SSI) will still get others to pay their bill.  

The problem is everyone does not need what the gov is making them take. A family may not need maternity coverage ect. What I am seeing and hearing is the people that have insurance already is, their deductible and premiums are doubling or worse. If you are paying for for more insurance than you need, the insurance company's will have a unrealistically higher ratio of premiums to claims. And being government controlled that's where the extra funding is coming from to fund the people that with out insurance that either can't work or wont work.

They are also expecting to pick up a ton of revenue from the young healthy crowd, problem with that is they are not going to sign up until they have health issues and just pay the small fine, which can only collected through tax returns.

Before, everyone was getting health care through emergency rooms, and it was getting paid for anyway. Sure we are all paying for it , but now it will cost us working stiffs a ton more.

The working crowd can't continue to support the non working crowd forever.  I would like to see the absolute truth of the ones that are truly unable to work, compared to the numbers that are taking money from the government. I don't think the 47% that we hear that are on the teet are legit.

'69, IMO the government has taken the step back! The lawmakers have found (or so it seems) a way to fund their irresponsible spending! The lawmakers are not going to dampen their life styles, accept responsibility for the country's deficit or IMO anything that doesn't benefit themselves, politically or financially! So what's left, raise taxes! Regardless the tax's title, it's simply a means to fund the next Washington party! The cost of conducting business within the United States has increased astronomically and companies have moved to tax friendly countries to increase  the bottom line.

I quit a company who provided a good pay package and decided to play the game of life at my own pace and without cooperate B.S.! I only wish I have planned well enough that my finances linger past my existence on this good earth.

As many have posted, I think we are on the same page. It's near unbelievable the country has come to the status it is today and most who share this way of mind wonder, does the future seem bleak!

Just another example. School tax was 58% of my 2013 property tax. I don't have children in school and have elected to provide pre-school education at a private facility. Sometimes the people who benefit from such taxes are the people providing the legislature to enter the tax into law. Does this ring a bell? Whether it's local or National the game is the same!

Dave.

Curt wrote:

DanH wrote:

supervel45 wrote:

DanH wrote:jobs going over sea ! why would corpoations do that?
one could say lower cost of labor.. that sound like corpoations wanted to pay for insurance and other beniefits.

ya, thats whats going to happen ,  they are all coming back to pay a larger overhead and reduce their profits.
they will show show programs such as O/C isnt needed.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                I think you missed my point? High worker (union and non union) demands as well as high Corporate profit expectations are some of the main reasons the jobs left. NAFTA promoted it, and enabled it, was my point. We need to fix our economy, and try to keep the good jobs we have left, and maybe bring some back, and not further harm the economy, while it is weak with ACA. I am not saying Health Care cost's are not getting out of control, by any means. I am trying to point out some of the cause's of the insurance mess, for debate, and hopefully solutions that may work, will come to light.

lets take the people that have their insurance cancled.
reason is it doesnt meet the requirements. that means under-insured.. what happens if that policy holder has an illness/accident not coverd or fully coverd? Holder could lose his home,bad credit and could ask the state for help. Lets say the state pays some or all for those not insured, who really pays? The tax payer..
wouldnt be better if everyone had insurance? those that are on state welfare or federal welfare (SSI) will still get others to pay their bill.  

Dan, I don't know how old you are but I'm going to guess low twenties.

lets take the people that have their insurance cancled.
reason is it doesnt meet the requirements. that means under-insured..

No, me and my wife are both past childbearing years and our children are grown. Neither of us need birth control, pregnancy coverage, well child health care, etc. We are not underinsured if we don't have this coverage. Bozo says we need it.

what happens if that policy holder has an illness/accident not coverd or fully coverd?

Do you not have the option to pay for the coverage you want? Why should the government tell you how much to buy?

Lets say the state pays some or all for those not insured, who really pays? The tax payer..
wouldnt be better if everyone had insurance?

People that don't have insurance now, aren't going to pay for it just because its the law. The only thing ACA did was allow them to sign up for it once they get sick.

those that are on state welfare or federal welfare (SSI) will still get others to pay their bill.  

So what is different other than the government collecting premiums for law abiding, tax paying citizens for policies that they don't want.

What are you going to do when they tell you that you have to buy 1000 bushels of corn per year?

Good response.............

IDT-572 wrote:
Good response.............

Why not offer us the same plan our politicians have, at the same premium they pay? It must be better, because none of them want to be held to the same standards.

Why are they needing to offer exemptions from ACA. If its "affordable" and good for all, why are people trying to avoid it like the plague. Why are lawmakers exempting themselves and their employees and contributors from it?

Curt , wish I was in my low 20's

you don't need this or that , the insurance company will know that when your given the cost of the policy.
like when you get auto insurance , cost by your driven record. Bty the goverment has required me to have auto insurance for many decades

when the gov. say I must buy corn , then I raise live stock, might be cheaper than paying the store for meat

Already said, there will be no differance for the gov. payed artist that draw welfare checks or funding by tax payers f

As Dave mentioned in his last post, about lawmakers motive's                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Did anyone catch the 60 Minutes episode not to long ago with D.Feistein or was it N.Pelosi when she was asked point blank about such legislation, point blank? Her facial expression was Priceless!

Super may I ask if you will edit your last post, it appears my post is included with yours. As th N.P. interview I did watch that interview. Her reaction was normal as to her political position or so it seemed!

Dave.

DanH wrote:Curt , wish I was in my low 20's

you don't need this or that , the insurance company will know that when your given the cost of the policy.
like when you get auto insurance , cost by your driven record. Bty the goverment has required me to have auto insurance for many decades

when the gov. say I must buy corn , then I raise live stock, might be cheaper than paying the store for meat

Already said, there will be no differance for the gov. payed artist that draw welfare checks or funding by tax payers f

Your making our case for us................. where does it stop:roll: 

DanH wrote:Curt , wish I was in my low 20's

you don't need this or that , the insurance company will know that when your given the cost of the policy.
like when you get auto insurance , cost by your driven record. Bty the goverment has required me to have auto insurance for many decades

when the gov. say I must buy corn , then I raise live stock, might be cheaper than paying the store for meat

Already said, there will be no differance for the gov. payed artist that draw welfare checks or funding by tax payers f

Not entirely true, on the auto insurance. The insurance companies take into acount all the unisured driver's in your area, not just your driving record. You pay for them, the unisured, also, when they don't obey the law. Trust me, I live near Houston Tx., and we have one of the highest rates in the country because of it. We were sold the auto ins. BS in Texas as a way of lowering rates, in the early 1980's and all it did was raise them.

DanH wrote:Curt , wish I was in my low 20's

you don't need this or that , the insurance company will know that when your given the cost of the policy.
like when you get auto insurance , cost by your driven record. Bty the goverment has required me to have auto insurance for many decades

when the gov. say I must buy corn , then I raise live stock, might be cheaper than paying the store for meat

Already said, there will be no differance for the gov. payed artist that draw welfare checks or funding by tax payers f

You reply like the rest of the children that don't know that ACA is.

you don't need this or that , the insurance company will know that when your given the cost of the policy.

 The only choice you have with ACA is your deductible and out of pocket expenses. No options for coverage.

like when you get auto insurance , cost by your driven record. Bty the goverment has required me to have auto insurance for many decades

Liability insurance is to cover me when you fail to control your vehicle, Full coverage is to protect the person with a lien on the vehicle. Comp/collision/uninsured motorist is not a requirement if you own the vehicle.

when the gov. say I must buy corn , then I raise live stock, might be cheaper than paying the store for meat

. Do you know how many feeders you can raise on 56,000 lbs of corn? Do you own enough land. Cows can't eat corn alone.

Already said, there will be no differance for the gov. payed artist that draw welfare checks or funding by tax payers f

Then why not make them buy ACA? Why should I have to? I already have insurance and Dr.'s that I am happy with.