Only 18% of Americans Want Total Repeal of Health Care Reform

[Mindcrime]

4 out of 5 Dentists, and everyone else, actually want to keep the reforms. Meanwhile, back in Washington, Republicans blow their big 2010 campaign promise in one night, with absolutely nothing to show for it.

Source (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/suspicious-health-law-hurt-economy-abc-news-washington/story?id=12639778)

[mesue]

4 out of 5 Dentists,
...
Dentists?
Normally they're not covered under regular health insurance. Perhaps they would be under Obamacare. I suppose I would support it too if I stood to gain money.
Did you know that in order to support Obamacare 3.5% of the sale of your home will be given to the Feds? 3.5% of 100,000 is 3,500. That's a lot of money.

[Dougles]

4 out of 5 Dentists, and everyone else, actually want to keep the reforms. Meanwhile, back in Washington, Republicans blow their big 2010 campaign promise in one night, with absolutely nothing to show for it.

Source (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/suspicious-health-law-hurt-economy-abc-news-washington/story?id=12639778)

I don't want total repeal... only about 95% repeal. We can keep the coeverage for pre-exisiting conditions, and cover "kids" till 24 (shouldn't be 26). But the rest is just a Dem handout to there HI masters!

[Dougles]

Did you know that in order to support Obamacare 3.5% of the sale of your home will be given to the Feds? 3.5% of 100,000 is 3,500. That's a lot of money.

Your an idiot! It's 3.5% of the PROFIT of the sale of your house over $500K.

Meaning i would have had to buy my house for $1MM and sell it for $1.5MM before I paid one cent of this tax...

[mikenold]

4 out of 5 Dentists, and everyone else, actually want to keep the reforms. Meanwhile, back in Washington, Republicans blow their big 2010 campaign promise in one night, with absolutely nothing to show for it.

Source (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/suspicious-health-law-hurt-economy-abc-news-washington/story?id=12639778)

I do notice and want to point out to everyone that reads this the word TOTAL in your title.

A poll has recently suggested that only 18% of Americans want a TOTAL repeal of the health care bill. This is extremely misleading and a completely disingenuous poll!!!

This poll was presented in a way that people could say that they do like some of the aspects of the bill and do not want all of the proposals of the bill repealed.

Actually anywhere from around 45%-55% of Americans polled want the health care bill repealed.

A new Gallup poll finds that 46% of Americans want their representative in Congress to vote to repeal the healthcare law, 40% want their representative to vote to let the law stand, and 14% have no opinion.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/elobqoifs0yevnw3cd9uhq.gif
There are certainly some good things in the bill. More people will be covered, pre-existing conditions will be covered, etc. However, there are a whole bunch of bad things in the bill. Abortion will be paid for using taxpayer dollars, health care costs will go up for most Americans, some people will be forced to change their doctor and some will also end up with less benefits than they enjoy today, and the plan will force our national debt to raise dramatically when the entire bill is implemented in 2014.

The problem with the poll is that the Republicans are out to repeal the whole thing and start from scratch. I don't even know if there would be a reasonable way to only repeal the parts they don't like. :)

[mikenold]

Your an idiot! It's 3.5% of the PROFIT of the sale of your house over $500K.

Meaning i would have had to buy my house for $1MM and sell it for $1.5MM before I paid one cent of this tax...

You are a disrespectful miscreant! This is what has been in news for some days now. Why do you feel the need to attack anyone for reporting what has been in the news. Especially coming from someone who time and time again makes his posts very difficult to read due to numerous spelling and grammar errors!

Here is the truth of the matter and I would like you to notice the part that states that even the fact checkers can understand how this misconception got started. The law itself is couched in highly technical language that only a qualified tax expert can fully grasp.

It is quite apparent that you have no such understanding of any misconception! How very rude and obnoxious of you!! After all, even you did not get the facts right!

The truth is that only a tiny percentage of home sellers will pay the tax. First of all, only those with incomes over $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married couples filing jointly) will be subject to it. And even for those who have such high incomes, the tax still won’t apply to the first $250,000 on profits from the sale of a personal residence — or to the first $500,000 in the case of a married couple selling their home.
We can understand how this misconception got started. The law itself is couched in highly technical language that only a qualified tax expert can fully grasp. (This provision begins on page 33 of the reconciliation bill (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h4872enr.txt.pdf) that was passed and signed into law.) And it does say the tax falls on "net gain … attributable to the disposition of property." That would include the sale of a home. But the bill also says the tax falls only on that portion of any gain that is "taken into account in computing taxable income" under the existing tax code. And the fact is, the first $250,000 in profit on the sale of a primary residence (or $500,000 in the case of a married couple) is excluded from taxable income already. (That exclusion doesn’t apply to vacation homes or rental properties.)
The Joint Committee on Taxation, the group of nonpartisan tax experts that Congress relies on to analyze tax proposals, underscores this in a footnote on page 135 of its report (http://jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=3673) on the bill. The note states: "Gross income does not include … excluded gain from the sale of a principal residence."
And just to be sure, we checked with William Ahern, director of policy and communications for the nonprofit, pro-business Tax Foundation (http://factchecked.org/2009/resources/tax-foundation/). "Some home sales would see a tax increase under this bill," Ahern told us, "but it would have to be a second home or a principal residence generating [a gain of] more than $250,000 ($500,000 for a couple)."
So there you have it. The sort of people who would have to pay the tax might include, for example:


A single executive making $210,000 a year who sells his $300,000 ski condo for a $50,000 profit. His tax on the sale of that vacation home would amount to $1,900, in addition to the capital gains tax he would have paid anyway.
An "empty nester" couple with combined income of over $250,000 a year who sell their $1 million primary residence to move to smaller quarters. If they cleared $600,000 on the sale, they would be taxed on $100,000 of the profit (the amount over the half-million-dollar exclusion). Their health care tax on the sale would amount to $3,800 over and above the usual capital gains levy.

I believe that this clears things up! ;)

[BorderBob]

See...even the right wing guys can't get their facts straight!





b.b.

[rn55bkwm]

Why don't we focus on the good that the bill has done already? Most people do NOT want the bill repealed. Many people want someof it taken out. The mounds of paperwork and the mandate to buy insurance are removable, but all in all, it can only help. It is a difficult read, for sure, but to listen to talk radio to gather facts about this bill is a guaranteed way to be misinformed. I recommend turning off your radio, and reading the bill, or read a synopsis that has been carefully written to eliminate opinion.

[mikenold]

Why don't we focus on the good that the bill has done already? Most people do NOT want the bill repealed. Many people want someof it taken out. The mounds of paperwork and the mandate to buy insurance are removable, but all in all, it can only help. It is a difficult read, for sure, but to listen to talk radio to gather facts about this bill is a guaranteed way to be misinformed. I recommend turning off your radio, and reading the bill, or read a synopsis that has been carefully written to eliminate opinion.

We can focus on what is good in the bill and throw away the bad. But, I believe that the repeal and replacing of the bill will happen far quicker than trying to get 435 House, 50 Senators and 1 POTUS to come to a consensus on what should stay and what should go in the current bill!

[Dougles]

An "empty nester" couple with combined income of over $250,000 a year who sell their $1 million primary residence to move to smaller quarters. If they cleared $600,000 on the sale, they would be taxed on $100,000 of the profit (the amount over the half-million-dollar exclusion). Their health care tax on the sale would amount to $3,800 over and above the usual capital gains levy.
[/LIST]
I believe that this clears things up! ;)


Thanks for proving my point! You and 99.8% of American won't be hit by this tax... unlike your wifes idea that someone selling a 100K house will have to pay the tax...

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/a-38-percent-sales-tax-on-your-home/

[Dougles]

Why don't we focus on the good that the bill has done already? Most people do NOT want the bill repealed. Many people want someof it taken out. The mounds of paperwork and the mandate to buy insurance are removable, but all in all, it can only help. It is a difficult read, for sure, but to listen to talk radio to gather facts about this bill is a guaranteed way to be misinformed. I recommend turning off your radio, and reading the bill, or read a synopsis that has been carefully written to eliminate opinion.

And what good would that be?

Please point out the "good" and it's costs...

You'll find yourself defending 100 pages and $5B of a 2000+ page bill and $150B a year totoal costs...

Is it worth spending $150B a year to get $5B of "good" out of it?

[mesue]

Your an idiot! It's 3.5% of the PROFIT of the sale of your house over $500K.

Meaning i would have had to buy my house for $1MM and sell it for $1.5MM before I paid one cent of this tax...
How am I an idiot. If I'm an idiot, you're a ****ing *******. I rarely call anyone one that. But you seem especially deserving of that title.
I multiplied 100,000 X 0.035 and the answer was 3,500. Even if it were of the profit ... how is this okay?

[mikenold]

Thanks for proving my point! You and 99.8% of American won't be hit by this tax... unlike your wifes idea that someone selling a 100K house will have to pay the tax...

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/a-38-percent-sales-tax-on-your-home/

Unlike your mistaken percentage when it is actually 3.8% NOT 3.5% as you posted. And where do you get the whole 99.8% thing from, just making up numbers? Sheesh, we can both play the you got it wrong game, can't we now! Why are you being such a knucklehead over this? :confused:

[mesue]

... Why are you being such a knucklehead over this? :confused:
His panties have been tied for quite some time now. I used to value what he has to say, but for the past month, or so, he's beyond knucklehead.

[OneEmerald]

Your an idiot! It's 3.5% of the PROFIT of the sale of your house over $500K.

Meaning i would have had to buy my house for $1MM and sell it for $1.5MM before I paid one cent of this tax...
And you're a ****ing moron! How's that?!
If someone mis-spoke or misinterpreted something, is there a reason to call them a name. God! I am getting so sick of this place. Some of you think you are the master of all knowledge. Get real, You're not!

[Dougles]

I multiplied 100,000 X 0.035 and the answer was 3,500. Even if it were of the profit ... how is this okay?

Sorry, but your intentions were to lead people to belive that if I sold my 200K house i'd be hit with a $7600 tax. Don't try to deny it!



Unlike your mistaken percentage when it is actually 3.8% NOT 3.5% as you posted.


You mean the number your wife first posted???

[mesue]

Sorry, but your intentions were ...
Who are you to say what anyone's intentions are?
When did we sit face to face and discuss any of this for you to know what my intentions are?
maybe you need to step away from the computer for a while.

[mesue]

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 45% of Likely Voters say repealing last year’s health care law will do more to reduce the federal budget deficit than allowing the law to be fully implemented. One-in-three voters (33%) believe allowing the law to stand as is is a better way to reduce the deficit, while another 22% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/questions/pt_survey_questions/january_2011/questions_change_health_care_law_january_11_12_201 1). (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/questions/pt_survey_questions/january_2011/questions_change_health_care_law_january_11_12_201 1))
Most voters have consistently favored repeal of the law (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law) since Democrats in Congress passed it last Match, and most continue to believe the law will increase the federal deficit and raise health care costs.

From: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/january_2011/voters_tend_to_see_health_care_repeal_as_a_deficit _reducer

[mesue]

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eyjpzvtkz70" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

[mesue]

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zPxMZ1WdINs" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

[Mindcrime]

I do notice and want to point out to everyone that reads this the word TOTAL in your title.

A poll has recently suggested that only 18% of Americans want a TOTAL repeal of the health care bill. This is extremely misleading and a completely disingenuous poll!!!...

Considering what Republicans and Tea Partiers ran on was repealing the whole thing, I find that particular number very relevant. They didn't run on repealing this part or that aspect. The whole thing. "Repeal and replace" was their battlecry of 2010. Of course they still have no idea what to 'replace' it with...

It's also important to note that a good percentage of the people who disagree with the Health Care Reform law do so because it does not go far enough. People who wanted a public option established. People who wanted HI companies to commit 95% of your premiums towards actual health care payments, instead of 80%.

[mikenold]

Considering what Republicans and Tea Partiers ran on was repealing the whole thing, I find that particular number very relevant. They didn't run on repealing this part or that aspect. The whole thing. "Repeal and replace" was their battlecry of 2010. Of course they still have no idea what to 'replace' it with...

It's also important to note that a good percentage of the people who disagree with the Health Care Reform law do so because it does not go far enough. People who wanted a public option established. People who wanted HI companies to commit 95% of your premiums towards actual health care payments, instead of 80%.

My point was that the poll was a farce, they worded the questions to skew the pol. The poll is garbage and does not reflect the will of the American people at all. The American people do not want this atrocious health care bill to become reality. Period! ;)

[Mindcrime]

My point was that the poll was a farce, they worded the questions to skew the pol. The poll is garbage and does not reflect the will of the American people at all. The American people do not want this atrocious health care bill to become reality. Period! ;)

Actually, the polls indicate that overall, people want to keep what we have, and to continue to improve on it. They don't want too simply discard it to the wind, contrary to what John "You're asking me?" (http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/01/20/how-washington-works/) Boehner tells everyone.

[therising]

DO YOURSELVES A FAVOR, AND READ THIS POST, BECAUSE I AM ANSWERING ALL OF THE PROBLEMS HERE:


The reality of it is this: There are some facets of Obamcare that MUST change.

For instance.....as of now, the manner in which employers will have to calculate the percentage which they must contribute toward their employee's healthcare is IMPOSSIBLE to calculate. It requires them to actually take into account the average household income of their employees. I hate to use this word, and I hardy ever use it -- but it's retarded. (If I had a better vocabulary, I would use a different word.)

That portion of the Law must be changed. And, I'm sure there are other portions that need to be changed, as well. But, I don't know enough about them.

Having said that...what the Republicans are doing right now is reprehensible. They're doing nothing, but wasting everyone's time, in order to make little point. Maybe, the rest of you are into symbolism, and maybe, you're all OK with paying people to make political points - when they should be representing you - but, I find it to be a disgrace.

The Republicans are blowing their opportunity right now - they could come away looking like heroes, if they put their heads together, and said "Look people, THESE are the parts of the Bill that HAVE to change - let's work together and fix this thing." That would a great opportunity for them to clean up a mess, and actually do something productive. But, it wouldn't be nearly as sexy as trying to repeal the Law - and the Tea Party crowd wouldn't even understand it.

In the bigger scheme of things -- they are trying to set up a political environment which will all but guarantee that NOTHING will EVER get accomplished in Washington, i.e., "you guys are in power this year, but when we're in power again next year, we'll spend all our time just reversing what you did." Naa naa naa naa naa.

Any of you who are proud members of the Republican Party should be ashamed, unless you're willing to say "Yes, therising, you're absolutely correct."

FINALLY - Dougles - you were wrong for being nasty about it, but you were absolutely right in correcting mesue on her point. mesue - if your point was wrong, then just admit it. mikenold - I can absolutely understand you sticking up for mesue, but if she was wrong, then she's wrong.

[mesue]

DO YOURSELVES A FAVOR, AND READ THIS POST, BECAUSE I AM ANSWERING ALL OF THE PROBLEMS HERE:


The reality of it is this: There are some facets of Obamcare that MUST change.

...
How can you say that you are answering ALL when Nancy said:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KoE1R-xH5To" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

[mikenold]

DO YOURSELVES A FAVOR, AND READ THIS POST, BECAUSE I AM ANSWERING ALL OF THE PROBLEMS HERE:


The reality of it is this: There are some facets of Obamcare that MUST change.

For instance.....as of now, the manner in which employers will have to calculate the percentage which they must contribute toward their employee's healthcare is IMPOSSIBLE to calculate. It requires them to actually take into account the average household income of their employees. I hate to use this word, and I hardy ever use it -- but it's retarded. (If I had a better vocabulary, I would use a different word.)

That portion of the Law must be changed. And, I'm sure there are other portions that need to be changed, as well. But, I don't know enough about them.

Having said that...what the Republicans are doing right now is reprehensible. They're doing nothing, but wasting everyone's time, in order to make little point. Maybe, the rest of you are into symbolism, and maybe, you're all OK with paying people to make political points - when they should be representing you - but, I find it to be a disgrace.

The Republicans are blowing their opportunity right now - they could come away looking like heroes, if they put their heads together, and said "Look people, THESE are the parts of the Bill that HAVE to change - let's work together and fix this thing." That would a great opportunity for them to clean up a mess, and actually do something productive. But, it wouldn't be nearly as sexy as trying to repeal the Law - and the Tea Party crowd wouldn't even understand it.

In the bigger scheme of things -- they are trying to set up a political environment which will all but guarantee that NOTHING will EVER get accomplished in Washington, i.e., "you guys are in power this year, but when we're in power again next year, we'll spend all our time just reversing what you did." Naa naa naa naa naa.

Any of you who are proud members of the Republican Party should be ashamed, unless you're willing to say "Yes, therising, you're absolutely correct."

FINALLY - Dougles - you were wrong for being nasty about it, but you were absolutely right in correcting mesue on her point. mesue - if your point was wrong, then just admit it. mikenold - I can absolutely understand you sticking up for mesue, but if she was wrong, then she's wrong.

As I have stated here before I believe that it would take much more time to deliver a health care bill if the Democrats and Republican were to go through the present bill and agree what should stay and what should go rather than just repeal the present bill and replace it with a new bill with the best of the present bill. I still stand by what I said. Let's give the Republicans the benefit of the doubt unless they prove me wrong.

Also, mesue did post some information that it turns out was in error but the information came from news reports stating the very thing that she said. At the time she wrote her post that was what was being reported. It was only after she posted that newer information became available regarding the 3.8% tax on home sales.

[mesue]

...
FINALLY - Dougles - you were wrong for being nasty about it, but you were absolutely right in correcting mesue on her point. mesue - if your point was wrong, then just admit it. mikenold - I can absolutely understand you sticking up for mesue, but if she was wrong, then she's wrong.
I had no issue with being corrected ...
Why do I have to type out that I was wrong?

[Dougles]

People who wanted HI companies to commit 95% of your premiums towards actual health care payments, instead of 80%.

Actually, it's 90%....

Ironically, that the % we have in NYS... with the 3rd highest HC cost in the WORLD!

[therising]

How can you say that you are answering ALL when Nancy said:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KoE1R-xH5To" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

Of course, like the Republicans in the House - you don't really care about the issue - you just care about politicizing it. :rolleyes:

[mesue]

Of course, like the Republicans in the House - you don't really care about the issue - you just care about politicizing it. :rolleyes:
Not at all. I care about health care. I've been it's advocate for 21 years. I also don't want to get robbed. With this health care bill ... we're getting, or gonna' get, robbed.

[rn55bkwm]

We can focus on what is good in the bill and throw away the bad. But, I believe that the repeal and replacing of the bill will happen far quicker than trying to get 435 House, 50 Senators and 1 POTUS to come to a consensus on what should stay and what should go in the current bill!
I find that difficult to believe, given that the Republicans do not have a plan to replace anything as of now. Before they waste precious time and our tax dollars voting on repeal, they should be able to present a document for replacement. That's like saying,"You know what? I don't like my car. I'm going to get rid of it. No, I don't have a plan for transportation. I just don't like this car and I'm going to get rid of it. My family will just have to walk or ride the bus until I can come up with another plan."
Repealing this law without a replacement will cause chaos in health care. Confusion would reign. Right now, senior citizens are confused about their medication coverage since it is different from last year. If their present coverage were to be yanked, it would be devastating and more difficult for them to understand. Nursing homes are on the edge about how they will continue to provide even standard care because of changes that will occur in Medicare. Let them make some changes, but make them present a plan first.

[rn55bkwm]

And what good would that be?

Please point out the "good" and it's costs...

You'll find yourself defending 100 pages and $5B of a 2000+ page bill and $150B a year totoal costs...

Is it worth spending $150B a year to get $5B of "good" out of it?

Senior citizens are now able to have the donut hole closed a little more each year. That means that you will not have to pay for hospitalizations which would not occur if the patient had been able to afford his/her medications. Medicare will have to pay for IV meds, treatment at a rehab facility afterward, and probably more expensive medications to get the patient back on track. Kids with type 1 diabetes will not be denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition, which means my four-year-old grandson who has juvenile diabetes, cannot be denied medical insurance if his parents change providers. It means that he is less likely to develop complications because he will be able to receive continuous medical care to prevent them. My daughter has met people who are unable to afford diabetic supplies and it makes her sick. If you want to look only at the bottom line, consider those things. The sooner people exhaust their savings and the caps on benefits, the sooner they go on Medicaid. So like the commercial says, " You can pay me now, or you can pay me later."

[rn55bkwm]

And what good would that be?

Please point out the "good" and it's costs...

You'll find yourself defending 100 pages and $5B of a 2000+ page bill and $150B a year totoal costs...

Is it worth spending $150B a year to get $5B of "good" out of it?
And, if you were one of the beneficiaries of the provisions of this plan, you would be less likely to criticize it. It's like the death penalty: back when my daughter was studying Criminal Justice at Hilbert, the thinking was that only 1% of those put to death were innocent. I said," If you're that innocent person, it's 100%"

[Dougles]

Senior citizens are now able to have the donut hole closed a little more each year. That means that you will not have to pay for hospitalizations which would not occur if the patient had been able to afford his/her medications. Medicare will have to pay for IV meds, treatment at a rehab facility afterward, and probably more expensive medications to get the patient back on track. Kids with type 1 diabetes will not be denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition, which means my four-year-old grandson who has juvenile diabetes, cannot be denied medical insurance if his parents change providers. It means that he is less likely to develop complications because he will be able to receive continuous medical care to prevent them. My daughter has met people who are unable to afford diabetic supplies and it makes her sick. If you want to look only at the bottom line, consider those things. The sooner people exhaust their savings and the caps on benefits, the sooner they go on Medicaid. So like the commercial says, " You can pay me now, or you can pay me later."

Again, so yo have no problem waisting 145B a year.... that's all i needed to know!


Wouldn't it have made more sense to figure out the reasons why the costs are so high??? NAH, let's just keep everything to high priced, but give it "free" to more people...

Logic fails some people.

[Dougles]

And, if you were one of the beneficiaries of the provisions of this plan, you would be less likely to criticize it. It's like the death penalty: back when my daughter was studying Criminal Justice at Hilbert, the thinking was that only 1% of those put to death were innocent. I said," If you're that innocent person, it's 100%"

No, i'd feel guilty that i'm waisting $145B a year and causing our economy to become worse...

[mesue]

I find that difficult to believe, given that the Republicans do not have a plan to replace anything as of now. Before they waste precious time and our tax dollars voting on repeal, they should be able to present a document for replacement.
...
My time and tax dollars were wasted enacting this "healthcare" plan.
Repealing it is time and money well spent.
We have two major government healthcare plans already. Why did we need a third?
So the IRS can get involved.
I say tweek the ones we have.

[mikenold]

I find that difficult to believe, given that the Republicans do not have a plan to replace anything as of now. Before they waste precious time and our tax dollars voting on repeal, they should be able to present a document for replacement. That's like saying,"You know what? I don't like my car. I'm going to get rid of it. No, I don't have a plan for transportation. I just don't like this car and I'm going to get rid of it. My family will just have to walk or ride the bus until I can come up with another plan."
Repealing this law without a replacement will cause chaos in health care. Confusion would reign. Right now, senior citizens are confused about their medication coverage since it is different from last year. If their present coverage were to be yanked, it would be devastating and more difficult for them to understand. Nursing homes are on the edge about how they will continue to provide even standard care because of changes that will occur in Medicare. Let them make some changes, but make them present a plan first.

You really have not been paying attention have you? Watching a little too much MSNBC lately, have you? The Republicans do have a plan and you will see it shortly. They have said all along that they want to REPEAL and REPLACE. I guess MSNBC only showed you the repeal part of what they have said. That's OK, I am here to set the record straight and give you the rest of the story. :)

[BorderBob]

You really have not been paying attention have you? Watching a little too much MSNBC lately, have you? The Republicans do have a plan and you will see it shortly. They have said all along that they want to REPEAL and REPLACE. I guess MSNBC only showed you the repeal part of what they have said. That's OK, I am here to set the record straight and give you the rest of the story. :)

No, I watched Eric Cantor dodge question after question yesterday on Meet The Press.

Q. What programs do you want to cut?
A. David, we are going to look at everythng

Q. Do you intend to means test Social Secutity?
A. David, everything is on the table for discussion.

Q. Mr. Cantor, was it cloudy or sunny when you stepped outside this morning?
A. David, We have a fundemental disagreement with the administration over global warming.

(ok, I made the last one up)




b.b.

[Dougles]

bob,
We all know that they want to cut and what needs to be cut.

But this is politics, they aren't going to make the first move when Obama's SOTU is tomorrow!

Paul Ryan will tell you at 10pm what they will be cutting... I will be upset if they do not mention DOD, Medicaid, medicare and SS...

[mikenold]

No, I watched Eric Cantor dodge question after question yesterday on Meet The Press.

Q. What programs do you want to cut?
A. David, we are going to look at everythng

Q. Do you intend to means test Social Secutity?
A. David, everything is on the table for discussion.

Q. Mr. Cantor, was it cloudy or sunny when you stepped outside this morning?
A. David, We have a fundemental disagreement with the administration over global warming.

(ok, I made the last one up
b.b.

Here are some links to Republican replacement of the repealed health care bill, of course this bill hasn't actually been repealed yet, the Senate and POTUS stand in the way!

We're On Track to Repeal Health Care -- Here's How We'll Do It
By Dean Clancy Published January 21, 2011

Wednesday, as its first major act, the new House of Representatives passed a bill to repeal the government takeover of health care. On Thursday, the House passed a “replace” resolution instructing key committees to begin replacing Obamacare with a patient-centered approach.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/01/21/track-real-health-care-heres/#ixzz1Bych98i7

GOP moves to repeal healthcare law
By Molly K.Hooper 05/27/10 06:32 PM ET
House Republican leaders introduced a bill Thursday to repeal and replace the sweeping healthcare law adopted in late March.
According to Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), the measure would repeal the current law and replace it with the alternative the minority party offered to the original healthcare legislation last November.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/100369-gop-moves-to-repeal-healthcare-law

The GOP’s main goal is cutting costs for people who already have health coverage — not creating a vast government bureaucracy to cover people who don’t.
“Why do you have to upset the apple cart for everyone, when, in fact, there is a fairly narrow population that you’re trying to reach?” asked Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), a physician.
The differences could be stark. The closest model to what Republicans are suggesting now — a substitute plan they offered in the House in November 2009 — would have covered just 3 million of the uninsured.
Although there is no House Republican plan yet, broad outlines are becoming visible. The goals given to four committees drafting the plan suggest that Republicans will lean heavily on old GOP standbys, like cutting costs through medical malpractice reform, using small-business purchasing agreements to lower premium costs and putting patients with pre-existing conditions into high-risk-coverage pools.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/48033.html#ixzz1BydoSrRP

Here is some of the plan put forth by OFFERED BY MR. BOEHNER OF OHIO
http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/RepublicanAlternative3962_9.pdf

In broad terms, GOP leaders agree on the goals. Lawmakers told FOX News that their broad goals include: cut waste, fraud and abuse; expand insurance coverage; reduce premiums; allow people to keep the coverage they have and block federal funding of abortion.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/20/republicans-plot-course-obamcare-replacement/#ixzz1Byeydg1s

House moves to replace health care law
08:19 AM
By Catalina Camia, USA TODAY Updated at 3:36 p.m. ET

House Republicans today began their effort to replace parts of the nation's health care law, after easily passing legislation to repeal the measure.

House Speaker John Boehner is directing committees to develop proposals that would replace the nation's health care law.
By Alex Brandon, AP
A resolution instructing committees to work on replacement plans passed the House on a 253-175 vote. There were 14 Democrats who joined Republicans in support of the resolution.
House Speaker John Boehner said the committees will be "replacing the job-destroying health care law with common-sense reforms that lower costs and protect jobs."

I know that we will hear how these are empty promises and all sorts of other dismissals of the Republican efforts to replace but they haven't repealed anything yet even though the House successfully voted for the repeal. The Democrats worked on the present plan for many years and I think that we must give the Republicans time to write the new replacement. It is only fair. Once proposed there will be plenty of time for the liberal progressives to try to convince everyone that the new plan is terrible and the Democrat version was better! :rolleyes:

[shortstuff]

Dentists?
Normally they're not covered under regular health insurance. Perhaps they would be under Obamacare. I suppose I would support it too if I stood to gain money.
Did you know that in order to support Obamacare 3.5% of the sale of your home will be given to the Feds? 3.5% of 100,000 is 3,500. That's a lot of money.

I heard about that. So if your home was sold for 350,000 you would have to pay 12,500. Whow that is interesting info mesue

[shortstuff]

Your an idiot! It's 3.5% of the PROFIT of the sale of your house over $500K.

Meaning i would have had to buy my house for $1MM and sell it for $1.5MM before I paid one cent of this tax...

Oh, I was wondering how this worked. But Dougles no one is an idiot, right? So 3.5 % of 500,000 is 17,500. Look that is a lot of dough.

[Dougles]

Oh, I was wondering how this worked. But Dougles no one is an idiot, right? So 3.5 % of 500,000 is 17,500. Look that is a lot of dough.

I'm not sure there are to many houses being sold for $1MM in profit now adays... We are in a housing crisis right?

[Dougles]

I heard about that. So if your home was sold for 350,000 you would have to pay 12,500. Whow that is interesting info mesue

Not true at all.

[shortstuff]

I'm not sure there are to many houses being sold for $1MM in profit now adays... We are in a housing crisis right?

We are, but there are houses still selling and big houses too. However, I had heard that the homes are getting smaller due to economics and family size....I always enjoy reading what you post. To the point and interesting.

[nickelcityhomes]

There are easy and completely legal ways to shield your assets from this silly tax. Those who have a home worth more than 500k already know how.

[Mindcrime]

You really have not been paying attention have you? Watching a little too much MSNBC lately, have you? The Republicans do have a plan and you will see it shortly. They have said all along that they want to REPEAL and REPLACE. I guess MSNBC only showed you the repeal part of what they have said. That's OK, I am here to set the record straight and give you the rest of the story. :)
They've been saying "repeal and replace" for nearly a year. They're pretty clear about repealing (pointless waste of Congress' time). How long until they figure out the 'replace' part? Until they start speaking in specifics and knock off the vague platitudes, I have little faith in their 'plan.'

[therising]

You really have not been paying attention have you? Watching a little too much MSNBC lately, have you? The Republicans do have a plan and you will see it shortly.

It almost sounds like you already support the not-yet-disclosed plan.

[therising]

Here are some links to Republican replacement of the repealed health care bill, of course this bill hasn't actually been repealed yet, the Senate and POTUS stand in the way!

First of all, it's not a Bill - it's a Law - that that they're trying to replace.

Secondly, do you bother to read the links you provide, or do you just copy and paste them from some blog? Cause most of them are from last year, and Mr. Boehner's offering of replacement is from 2009.

I'm not sure if this is just sloppiness on your part, or, is he, again, trying to (re) offer something which wasn't passed the first time?

Finally - Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds to say "The Bill hasn't been repealed yet because the Senate and POTUS stand in the way?"

Now, that the Republicans control the House, you are actually talking about the Senate, and the President, as if they are just nuisances - mere trivial formalities - that are standing in the way of progress. :D:rolleyes:

Mike - you would be funny if you weren't being serious.:D

[mikenold]

They've been saying "repeal and replace" for nearly a year. They're pretty clear about repealing (pointless waste of Congress' time). How long until they figure out the 'replace' part? Until they start speaking in specifics and knock off the vague platitudes, I have little faith in their 'plan.'

They have not repealed anything yet. Also, they did not have the votes in congress to repeal anything until January this year. This is a far cry from a year as we are still in January which is obviously less than 1 month! :rolleyes:

[mikenold]

It almost sounds like you already support the not-yet-disclosed plan.

I will have to take a good look, but I do know the differences in philosophy between the Democrats and Republicans and am quite certain that the Republicans will come up with a plan that will be less costly than the Democrats. :)

[mikenold]

First of all, it's not a Bill - it's a Law - that that they're trying to replace.

Temporarily!


Secondly, do you bother to read the links you provide, or do you just copy and paste them from some blog? Cause most of them are from last year, and Mr. Boehner's offering of replacement is from 2009.

So you are saying that Boehner's plan is not valid? I was only asserting that the Republicans do, in fact, have plans for replacement in contradiction of BB's claims.


I'm not sure if this is just sloppiness on your part, or, is he, again, trying to (re) offer something which wasn't passed the first time?

The Democrats and Obama did not even listen to anything the Republicans put forward until they became the majority in the House. Did you happen to see any part of the meeting that Obama held right before the election? You know, where he was going to sit down and supposedly work WITH the Republicans? :rolleyes:


Finally - Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds to say "The Bill hasn't been repealed yet because the Senate and POTUS stand in the way?"

Ridiculous? Let's just see where the bill is stopped. I guarantee that it will be in either the Senate or at Obama's veto desk.


Now, that the Republicans control the House, you are actually talking about the Senate, and the President, as if they are just nuisances - mere trivial formalities - that are standing in the way of progress. :D:rolleyes:

I can only hope that the American people can see and understand who is trying to do their will and vote the others out in 2012. I can dream, can't I? :)


Mike - you would be funny if you weren't being serious.:D

Believe me, I am serious! But I can be funny too, just ask my children! :D

[Bioguy231]

Here's something I received from a friend via email today:


> THIS IS THE 2ND OFFICIAL WHO HAS OUTLINED THESE PARTS OF THE CARE BILL
> Judge Kithil of Marble Falls , TX - HB3200 highlighted pages most
egregious
> Please read this........ especially the reference to pages 58 & 59
>
>
> JUDGE KITHIL wrote:
>
>
> ** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S.
residents, even if they are here illegally.
>
> ** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an
individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic
fund transfers from those accounts.
>
> ** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government)
for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations
(such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -
ACORN).
>
> ** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be
treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with
that?)
>
> ** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of
specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.
>
> ** Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to
the patient's age.
>
> ** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on
hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.
>
> ** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning
consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an
"end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counseling..)
>
> ** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can
write an end-of-life order.
>
> HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on:
>
> "Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to
members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the
Social Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers
their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I
believe they would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan financially
sound for their future."
>
> Honorable David Kithil
> Marble Falls, Texas

[BorderBob]

Here's something I received from a friend via email today:

OMG! Quick, break out the web browser...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/30/e-mail-analysis-health-bill-needs-check-/


b.b.

[mikenold]

OMG! Quick, break out the web browser...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/30/e-mail-analysis-health-bill-needs-check-/


b.b.

Do you think that maybe politifact is kinda biased here!!!

They state that:

"The claim that the bill provides free health care for illegal immigrants is particularly egregious, Tolbert said. "No one's provided with free health care. That's ridiculous," she said."

WHAT????? No one is provided with free health care??????? Here we were told that at least 30,000,000 people currently with no health care (the "poor") would now receive health care and what about those that presently have pre-existing conditions????? It would seem that they are going a little overboard in their supposed "unbiased" evaluation! Hogwash, they are clearly lying, or the Democrats that have told us all about this bill were lying. Which is it? Hmmmmm! :rolleyes:

REPEAL and REPLACE!!!

[Mindcrime]

I will have to take a good look, but I do know the differences in philosophy between the Democrats and Republicans and am quite certain that the Republicans will come up with a plan that will be less costly than the Democrats. :)

The Republicans made it their number one priority. They took their shot. They're going to fail epically. They want to jump out of the plane before putting on their parachute.

[mikenold]

The Republicans made it their number one priority. They took their shot. They're going to fail epically. They want to jump out of the plane before putting on their parachute.

The Republicans have never has a shot at all! They will get their shot though, that's for sure. ;)

[BorderBob]

"The claim that the bill provides free health care for illegal immigrants is particularly egregious, Tolbert said. "No one's provided with free health care. That's ridiculous," she said."

I think we are parsing words here. No one gets "free" health care, but plenty of people get health care which isn't paid for (or paid by others) Sorta like when you go to Verizon and get a "free" phone. It isn't really given to you at no cost, it is just recouped in other ways.

I received an email the other day regarding "Dhimmitude" and how "Muslims are not required to participate in HCR." Well the law actually provides for an exemption based on religious beliefs. The HCR does not contain the work "dhimmitude" and the excemption can be exercised by other groups including Christian Scientists, the Amish, Native Americans, etc.

Another example of each side of the debate having its own "facts."




b.b.

[mikenold]

I think we are parsing words here. No one gets "free" health care, but plenty of people get health care which isn't paid for (or paid by others) Sorta like when you go to Verizon and get a "free" phone. It isn't really given to you at no cost, it is just recouped in other ways.

I received an email the other day regarding "Dhimmitude" and how "Muslims are not required to participate in HCR." Well the law actually provides for an exemption based on religious beliefs. The HCR does not contain the work "dhimmitude" and the excemption can be exercised by other groups including Christian Scientists, the Amish, Native Americans, etc.

Another example of each side of the debate having its own "facts."
b.b.

You are correct! Nothing is free! I have also seen that email. The truth is that some Muslims would not be able to participate because of their beliefs. There are other religions that would need to have that exemption as well.

The Amish, as well as some other religious sects, are covered by a "religious conscience" exemption, which allows people with religious objections to insurance to opt out of the mandate. It is in both the House and Senate versions of the bill, making its appearance in the final version routine unless there are last-minute objections.

Exemptions are being handed out all over the spectrum. Obama just wrote an exemption for 3 of the SEIU union groups. I guess some people are more equal than others under his health care plan. This is obviously a very bad bill or why would only some get exemptions and not others? It seems that there is an arbitrary choice being made as to who will pay for Obama care. This is just another reason to repeal and replace. ;)

Here are a few other examples:

Nearly a million workers won't get a consumer protection in the U.S. health reform law meant to cap insurance costs because the government exempted their employers.
Thirty companies and organizations, including McDonald's (MCD) (http://stocks.usatoday.com/custom/usatoday-com/html-quote.asp?symb=mcd) and Jack in the Box (JACK) (http://stocks.usatoday.com/custom/usatoday-com/html-quote.asp?symb=jack), won't be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low-cost health plans, which are often used to cover part-time or low-wage employees.
The Department of Health and Human Services (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Organizations/Companies/Health+and+Medicine/United+States+Department+of+Health+and+Human+Servi ces), which provided a list of exemptions, said it granted waivers in late September so workers with such plans wouldn't lose coverage from employers who might choose instead to drop health insurance altogether.


Obama Care, the change most of didn't want, has now given 111 exemptions (http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html)– and counting, to unions and companies seeking cover from the marvels of Obama Care. The exemptions are being handed out by Obama Central Planning to quail an every rising chorus of American unions and companies unable to meet OC (Obama Care) requirements.

The POTUS, Vice President, members of the House and Senate, as well as all of there immediate staff are exempt.

Just a few more:
1) Darden Restaurants which includes Olive Garden,
Red Lobster, Bahama Breeze, Longhorn
2) McDonalds
3) Cracker Barrel
4) O’Reilly Auto Parts
5) Dish Network
6) Ruby Tuesday
7) CIGNA
8) Assurant Health
9) Pocono Medical Center
10) Aetna
11) Alliance One Tobacco -huh?
12) UFCW Maximus Local 455 – and many more unions!!

How many more exemptions will be given before the law goes in to effect in 2014???

The other issue is: Who is going to pay for the more than 30,000,000 or so new people added to the free health care rolls? The pool is getting smaller and smaller with each and every exemption. Soon there will be only a precious few that will be forced to pay for the free health care afforded to others. The price tag for those without the exemption is growing by leaps and bounds!!!! :mad:

You are also correct that it is hard to get to the truth of many things these days as the "facts" seem to differ depending on who you choose to believe.

[mesue]

...
Just a few more:
1) Darden Restaurants which includes Olive Garden,
Red Lobster, Bahama Breeze, Longhorn
2) McDonalds
3) Cracker Barrel
4) O’Reilly Auto Parts
5) Dish Network
6) Ruby Tuesday
7) CIGNA
8) Assurant Health
9) Pocono Medical Center
10) Aetna
11) Alliance One Tobacco -huh?
12) UFCW Maximus Local 455 – and many more unions!!

How many more exemptions will be given before the law goes in to effect in 2014???

...
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->Total Enrollees 1,507,418 thus far.
Did you see how many unions are listed?

[therising]

1/20/11 Quoth therising:




The reality of it is this: There are some facets of Obamcare that MUST change.

For instance.....as of now, the manner in which employers will have to calculate the percentage which they must contribute toward their employee's healthcare is IMPOSSIBLE to calculate........

.......That portion of the Law must be changed. And, I'm sure there are other portions that need to be changed, as well. But, I don't know enough about them.



1/25/11 Quoth thepresident:


So let me be the first to say that anything can be improved. If you have ideas about how to improve this law by making care better or more affordable, I am eager to work with you. We can start right now by correcting a flaw in the legislation that has placed an unnecessary bookkeeping burden on small businesses. (Applause.)

[mikenold]

1/25/11 Quoth thepresident:
So let me be the first to say that anything can be improved. If you have ideas about how to improve this law by making care better or more affordable, I am eager to work with you. We can start right now by correcting a flaw in the legislation that has placed an unnecessary bookkeeping burden on small businesses. (Applause.)


I believe that he was referring to the team of bookkeepers that would be necessary to print and deliver the 1099's to all employees receiving company paid health care. The unfortunate souls that don't belong to those listed earlier with exemptions that will have to claim health care benefits as income! ;)

[mesue]

1/25/11 Quoth thepresident

So let me be the first to say that anything can be improved. If you have ideas about how to improve this law by making care better or more affordable, I am eager to work with you.
...
In his effort to seem like he's toward the center NOW he says he's looking for ways to improve?
Shouldn't the time to have actually done this was before he rammed this law down our throats? You cannot count the half assed meeting he has with republicans prior to passage, dissing all of their ideas as such.
He said a lot of things that he has said before.
What? No more earmarks?

[mikenold]

1/25/11 Quoth thepresident

In his effort to seem like he's toward the center NOW he says he's looking for ways to improve?
Shouldn't the time to have actually done this was before he rammed this law down our throats? You cannot count the half assed meeting he has with republicans prior to passage, dissing all of their ideas as such.
He said a lot of things that he has said before.
What? No more earmarks?

Of course, he will veto any bill that comes accross his desk! Now llet me clarify, did he say this in the SOTU address or was this during the campaign.

Hint: It could be both! :rolleyes:

He doesn't even believe the words he speaks as is evident by his expression as he speaks the words. They are only words, his actions are not true to his words.

[therising]

mesue and mikenold - you would both make great politicians. Because, for both of you, resolving an issue is never as important as taking the opportunity to take a shot at the other side.

Your way of thinking is not only part of the problem, it is the problem.

On a somewhat unrelated note, mikenold, I am offering you honest advice, when I tell you that - if you are serious about your run for office, you need to get rid of this mentality. Otherwise, you will accomplish absolutely nothing.

[mesue]

mesue and mikenold - you would both make great politicians. Because, for both of you, resolving an issue is never as important as taking the opportunity to take a shot at the other side.

Your way of thinking is not only part of the problem, it is the problem.

On a somewhat unrelated note, mikenold, I am offering you honest advice, when I tell you that - if you are serious about your run for office, you need to get rid of this mentality. Otherwise, you will accomplish absolutely nothing.
If trying to obtain common ground i.e. the truth of the matter is not important to you, I can't help that. You and I will not see eye to eye on a lot of things. But making value judgments on what is, or is not, important to me, or anyone else, is not up to you to make. What is important to you is just that: important to you.
With that said didn't Obama campaign on a no ear mark promise? Didn't he also campaign on being fiscally sound? Didn't he campaign on closing Gitmo ... oh, that wasn't mentioned last night. Didn't he campaign on ending the war by last year?
Did he not say last night that he was open to hearing suggestions on how to improve this healthcare law? Shouldn't the time to have been open have been before it was rammed down our throats while he had the power to do so?
But, somehow, this is okay with you.

[therising]

If trying to obtain common ground i.e. the truth of the matter is not important to you, I can't help that. You and I will not see eye to eye on a lot of things. But making value judgments on what is, or is not, important to me, or anyone else, is not up to you to make. What is important to you is just that: important to you.
With that said didn't Obama campaign on a no ear mark promise? Didn't he also campaign on being fiscally sound? Didn't he campaign on closing Gitmo ... oh, that wasn't mentioned last night. Didn't he campaign on ending the war by last year?
Did he not say last night that he was open to hearing suggestions on how to improve this healthcare law? Shouldn't the time to have been open have been before it was rammed down our throats while he had the power to do so?
But, somehow, this is okay with you.

You did an awesome job at proving my point. Thank you. :)

[mesue]

You did an awesome job at proving my point. Thank you. :)
or, you just can't read. We've gone through this before, however, I can't help you anymore as I lost my connection with BOCES. Sorry :)

[therising]

or, you just can't read. We've gone through this before, however, I can't help you anymore as I lost my connection with BOCES. Sorry :)

Great conversation about health care reform. :rolleyes:

[mesue]

Great conversation about health care reform. :rolleyes:
Then, stop saying stuff about me and mine and keep to the topic at hand. ;)

[Bailey]

You are correct! Nothing is free! I have also seen that email. The truth is that some Muslims would not be able to participate because of their beliefs. There are other religions that would need to have that exemption as well.

The Amish, as well as some other religious sects, are covered by a "religious conscience" exemption, which allows people with religious objections to insurance to opt out of the mandate. It is in both the House and Senate versions of the bill, making its appearance in the final version routine unless there are last-minute objections.

Exemptions are being handed out all over the spectrum. Obama just wrote an exemption for 3 of the SEIU union groups. I guess some people are more equal than others under his health care plan. This is obviously a very bad bill or why would only some get exemptions and not others? It seems that there is an arbitrary choice being made as to who will pay for Obama care. This is just another reason to repeal and replace. ;)

Here are a few other examples:

Nearly a million workers won't get a consumer protection in the U.S. health reform law meant to cap insurance costs because the government exempted their employers.
Thirty companies and organizations, including McDonald's (MCD) (http://stocks.usatoday.com/custom/usatoday-com/html-quote.asp?symb=mcd) and Jack in the Box (JACK) (http://stocks.usatoday.com/custom/usatoday-com/html-quote.asp?symb=jack), won't be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low-cost health plans, which are often used to cover part-time or low-wage employees.
The Department of Health and Human Services (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Organizations/Companies/Health+and+Medicine/United+States+Department+of+Health+and+Human+Servi ces), which provided a list of exemptions, said it granted waivers in late September so workers with such plans wouldn't lose coverage from employers who might choose instead to drop health insurance altogether.


Obama Care, the change most of didn't want, has now given 111 exemptions (http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html)– and counting, to unions and companies seeking cover from the marvels of Obama Care. The exemptions are being handed out by Obama Central Planning to quail an every rising chorus of American unions and companies unable to meet OC (Obama Care) requirements.

The POTUS, Vice President, members of the House and Senate, as well as all of there immediate staff are exempt.

Just a few more:
1) Darden Restaurants which includes Olive Garden,
Red Lobster, Bahama Breeze, Longhorn
2) McDonalds
3) Cracker Barrel
4) O’Reilly Auto Parts
5) Dish Network
6) Ruby Tuesday
7) CIGNA
8) Assurant Health
9) Pocono Medical Center
10) Aetna
11) Alliance One Tobacco -huh?
12) UFCW Maximus Local 455 – and many more unions!!

How many more exemptions will be given before the law goes in to effect in 2014???

The other issue is: Who is going to pay for the more than 30,000,000 or so new people added to the free health care rolls? The pool is getting smaller and smaller with each and every exemption. Soon there will be only a precious few that will be forced to pay for the free health care afforded to others. The price tag for those without the exemption is growing by leaps and bounds!!!! :mad:

You are also correct that it is hard to get to the truth of many things these days as the "facts" seem to differ depending on who you choose to believe.

They've upped the exemptions:
At the end of last year, the Department of Health and Human Services had granted some 222 temporary waivers to businesses small and large, insurers, and labor and other organizations that offer affordable health insurance or prescription-drug coverage with limited benefits. On Wednesday, the agency quietly updated its online list, which now reveals a whopping total of 729 Obamacare escapees — in addition to four states, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, and Tennessee — that collectively cover about 2.1 million enrollees. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/258240/waivers-favors-michelle-malkin

[mikenold]

They've upped the exemptions:
At the end of last year, the Department of Health and Human Services had granted some 222 temporary waivers to businesses small and large, insurers, and labor and other organizations that offer affordable health insurance or prescription-drug coverage with limited benefits. On Wednesday, the agency quietly updated its online list, which now reveals a whopping total of 729 Obamacare escapees — in addition to four states, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, and Tennessee — that collectively cover about 2.1 million enrollees. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/258240/waivers-favors-michelle-malkin

They continued issuing more and more exemption every day this week. There were many union members that can now breath a sigh of relief as they will keep their Cadillac plans and not have to contribute towards the 30,000,000 people that will be getting FREE care under the law. Every new exemption raises the cost to all those cash cows that will not be included in the growing list of the "lucky" ones that hold exemptions!!! :mad:

Repeal and replace is the way to deal with this "some are created more equal than others" Obama Administration plan. ;)

Forty Percent of ObamaCare Exemptions Are Unions
January 28, 2011
By Editor
Unions make up 40 percent of employees exempted from Obamacare
David Freddoso | The Examiner
Jan 27 2011

Yesterday, the Deparment of Health and Human Services announced it had granted more than 500 new waivers to Obamacares requirement that health plans have annual limits of no less than $750,000. This annual limit requirement climbs to $1.25 million next year and then to $2 million.

The reason these exemptions from the law are needed is that Obamacare forces all health insurance consumers to over-insure themselves and pay high premiums as a result. Without the waivers, many companies, non-profits and unions would simply drop their health plans. As of 2014, the waivers will no longer be available — at least, thats the way the law is written.

January 28, 2011
More Than Half of Union Workers Exempt From ObamaCare

Posted by Van Helsing at January 28, 2011 8:49 AM

Our Community Organizer in Chief will grind the rest of us under the heel of ObamaCare, but not his union friends:

Yesterday, the Deparment of Health and Human Services announced it had granted more than 500 new waivers to Obamacare's requirement that health plans have annual limits of no less than $750,000. This annual limit requirement climbs to $1.25 million next year and then to $2 million.

The reason these exemptions from the law are needed is that Obamacare forces all health insurance consumers to over-insure themselves and pay high premiums as a result. Without the waivers, many companies, non-profits and unions would simply drop their health plans. As of 2014, the waivers will no longer be available…

It is worth noting that there are 166 union benefits funds now exempted from this requirement, which account for about 40 percent of the exempted workers. This means that although there are only 14.6 million unionized employees in the United States, and 860,000 of them are already exempted from this provision of Obamacare.

Payback for their votes? Absolutely Ridiculous!!!

[mesue]

They've upped the exemptions:
...
This has to stop.

[mikenold]

More waivers!!!

Four States Get Waivers to Carry Out Health Law

By ROBERT PEAR (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/robert_pear/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

Published: February 16, 2011

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Wednesday that it had granted broad waivers to four states allowing health insurance (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) companies to continue offering less generous benefits than they would otherwise be required to provide this year under the new federal health care law.

The states are Florida, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee, the administration told Congress.
Lawmakers said that many other states, insurers and employers needed similar exemptions from some of the law’s requirements and would seek waivers if they knew of the option.
Steven B. Larsen, a top federal insurance regulator, said the waivers would allow many consumers to keep the coverage they had, a goal often espoused by President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per).

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/health/policy/17health.html?_r=1&ref=politics