|
Politics Where we learn not to think less of others who don't share our views |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
12-06-2014, 01:21 PM | #76 |
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
|
My current plan will not be available next year. Its changing again. The new comparable plan is $200 more a month and has an OOP max of $6350 (compared with $2500) AND my prescription coverage is now 50% up to $125 per instead of a $10 copay. The one prescription I use 5 times a year means I'll be out another $575 a year.
In fact, the company is not truly offering a "group plan" any longer. What they are doing is paying a % of each employees plan. The available options are all based upon age. Therefore all the older employees are getting screwed even harder. ETA - One coworker will be paying over $900 a month for just him and his wife. Thats almost double from last year. Thanks Obama!
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt |
12-08-2014, 08:28 AM | #77 |
UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 20,012
|
Sounds more like, "Thanks unethical employer."
If your employer is offering shit plans, there are very likely better plans on the state/federal exchange. Your employer could have screwed you at any point along the way, they are doing so now because they want you to get off their plan and find something better in the new system. |
12-08-2014, 09:04 AM | #78 |
™
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,717
|
While I'm pleased that my premiums haven't gone up this year, the costs of my health care are staggering. I can't get my hands on the 2015 numbers, but in 2014, I'm paying $4,560 per year for my family plan premiums. And since it's an HSA type of plan, I need to put funds aside for that to pay for the actual health care we use before the $6k in-network family deductible is met. I set aside $2,640 per year for that. So I'm spending $7,200 for family health care per year for simple wellness visits and basic stuff like contact lenses. This doesn't include dental. Doesn't seem like that much until you factor in what my company is paying. They pay $15,946.32 per year in premiums for my family plan. So that's a total of $23,146.32 per year for health care for a healthy family of 4. We also get the promise that if we get really sick, we will be taken care of (after that $6k deductible is met.) And I guess that's what insurance is all about.
|
12-08-2014, 09:23 AM | #79 |
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
What? Employer/Insurance co, screw you? In America? Poppycock.
I'm not surprised to see Humana team up with walmart and AARP, after all, scum congeals. It was Humana sending bullshit letters to subscribers in the months leading up to the Obamacare start, tricking them into a most costly policy. Various states have fined them millions of dollars for being lying scumbags, but they are just saying 'oops, sorry', all the way to the bank.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. |
12-08-2014, 09:23 PM | #80 | |
barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 23,401
|
Quote:
These are the EXACT SAME PLANS available on the exchange.
__________________
"like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt |
|
12-10-2014, 04:38 PM | #81 | |||||
Colonist Extraordinaire
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Redondo Beach, CA (transplant from St. Louis, MO)
Posts: 218
|
Hi everyone! Remember me?
I was reminded of this forum when the torture report came out yesterday, because we had such a great conversation about torture a few years ago. I was going to revive that thread, but thought I'd pop in here first because it looked like fun, too, so here goes (Part 1 of 2) ... Quote:
“Companies are just more inclined to hire part-time workers, not necessarily because of the health-care law, but for business reasons that make it a more attractive option,” Ms. Girard said. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The Coverage Gap: Uninsured Poor Adults in States that Do Not Expand Medicaid – An UpdateThat would therefore not be the fault of either President Obama or the Affordable Care Act. It would be the fault of the conservative Supreme Court who altered the ACA to make Medicare expansion optional instead of mandatory for the states. In other words, blame your state Governor, not President Obama. Quote:
Here is Politifact's assessment of the economic numbers as compared to when President Obama took office. For the most part, the numbers you want to see going up, are going up, some of them significantly. And the numbers you want to see going down are going down. Where the numbers aren't doing what we'd hope for, there are factors that have little to nothing to do with anything President Obama has done or not done. You'll find (should you choose to read through it in full) that "bad" numbers are often attributed to the financial collapse that occurred as a result of the previous administration's bad policies that brought us to our knees in a deep recession. For instance: Median household income rose just slightly to $51,939 in 2013, Census reported. In “real” income, adjusted for inflation, that was 0.3 percent higher than in 2012, but still 4.6 percent below 2008, the year before Obama first took office, when the first effects of the worst recession since the Great Depression were just starting to be felt. ... As of September, the U.S. had 5,459,000 more people employed than it did when Obama took office in 2009. And the official unemployment rate had dipped to 5.9 percent, which was 1.9 percentage points below where it was when he first took office.His policies have been extraordinarily great to Businesses and Wall Street -- those folks Reagan promised would "trickle down" their financial rewards on us if we would lower their tax responsibility to "free up" more of their cash -- yeah, those guys. Who never actually did that. The Obama years have brought dramatically better times for corporations and their stockholders.Do you think the average worker and family would be doing better if corporations stopped using taxpayers like you and me to supplement their payroll departments with our money in the form of survival security programs? Did you know that if Wal-Mart would take their $28 Billion in annual profits (profits -- as in after taxes -- not income) and raised all 1.4 million American workers' salaries by a mere $5,000 a year, it would pull families out of poverty, reduce reliance on social programs (freeing up tax dollars to be used for infrastructure repair, creating jobs for millions of Americans), and still leave them a multibillion-dollar corporation with annual profits of $18 billion? It's true. Do you not think corporations in America have a responsibility to pay their own payroll from their own profits? Why should they be allowed to suck off the government teat when they have way more than enough to cover their own payroll expenses and still be filthy rich? How does that promote American values? How does that promote a self-reliant public? If people were doing that -- forcing the government to pay their mortgage or rent, their utilities and their food, while all they paid for was their car and their clothing while they were sitting on million-dollar bank accounts -- you'd be UP IN ARMS and you know it. Yes we do. Are you interested in why? Because it's not all President Obama's fault, you know. The federal debt held by the public, which had not quite doubled as of our last report, is now nearly 103 percent higher than it was the day he first took office. The “total” debt, which includes money the government owes to itself, has gone up by more than 68 percent.I'd love to see it do better. What have Republicans who control the purse strings in Congress done to make it better? They've spent a lot of time and taxpayer resources to make 54 votes to repeal or gut the Affordable Care Act. How many jobs bills have they introduced, let alone passed? Actual jobs bills, not tax cuts that they claim will create jobs in the way Reagan's peeing program claimed but failed to deliver. --continued-- Last edited by Jill; 12-10-2014 at 04:42 PM. Reason: Added a link to the torture thread. |
|||||
12-10-2014, 04:41 PM | #82 | |||||||
Colonist Extraordinaire
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Redondo Beach, CA (transplant from St. Louis, MO)
Posts: 218
|
Part 2 of 2:
Quote:
The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.Now that sure seems damning if President Obama and his policies had actually done worse. But have they? The number is higher, but why? From Politifact again: Both figures are staggering, but are not entirely Obama’s fault. As we’ve often noted, the FY2009 federal deficit was running at a rate of $1.2 trillion on the day he took office in the midst of a financial crisis.So if you step into office and the deficit (the difference between what you're spending and what you're bringing in) is averaging $1.2 trillion a year because of spending bills and budgets that were passed before you even took office, you can't really be said to have caused all of the increase in the debt. But if you're the president who put two multitrillion-dollar wars on the nation's credit card, hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans on the nation's credit card, and lied to the United States Congress to get them to pass a massive giveaway to the Pharmaceutical industry that you put on the nation's credit card, then left all those obligations in place still racking up the debt for the next guy who steps in ("Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for almost $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs.), I think you can rightly be blamed for being irresponsible and unpatriotic. Quote:
Quote:
“The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year’s wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently.”You remember who was threatening to default on our obligations and actually shut the government down rather than raise the debt ceiling, right? That would be the irresponsible actors in Congress, I'm afraid. Quote:
Quote:
And let's not forget all the states where strict voter ID laws had a negative impact on Democratic turnout. Or the fact that by mere chance, there were more Senate elections in Red states than in Blue. Quote:
Bush told conservative Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes that "bin Laden doesn’t fit with the administration’s strategy for combating terrorism." And in a subsequent press conference he scolded us for not "understand[ing] the scope of the mission" because bin Laden was just "one person" whom he "really just [didn't] spend that much time on." His exact words: Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not. We haven’t heard from him in a long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. He’s just a person who’s been marginalized. … I don’t know where he is. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.You preferred that tactic over the one President Obama employed: Having him hunted down and his ass shot dead? Quote:
One big reason the participation rate dropped involves long-run demographic trends that have nothing to do with the current economy. Baby boomers are starting to retire en masse, which means that there are fewer eligible American workers.Maybe we should check some of Glorious Leader's accomplishments a little closer. http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevemoo...e-found-a-job/[/quote] Will you please stop with the insulting names for your president? It's really unbecoming and officer and a gentleman. I hope at least some of this insight has been edifying for you. Jill |
|||||||
12-10-2014, 04:49 PM | #83 |
Colonist Extraordinaire
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Redondo Beach, CA (transplant from St. Louis, MO)
Posts: 218
|
As for what President Obama has done for me personally, it's everything he's done for this country as a whole. Here's a short list of the accomplishments of his administration that I'm most proud of:
I could go on and on and on, but this is a good enough list, I think. Has he been perfect? No. He's human, as subject to err as any of us. Have I agreed with all his negotiated compromises? No. But I recognize the necessity of them, given the obstructionism of Republicans. Do I like all of his policies? No. But then that would only be possible if he were me, because I'm sure no one in the world agrees with 100 percent of everything I believe except me. But we are so, so, so much better off as a country in so many myriad ways since he took office than we were when his predecessor left, it's almost beyond the ability to measure. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|