Archive

Healthcare Passes 219-212

  • IggyPride00
    derek bomar wrote:
    IggyPride00 wrote: AT&T announces $1 billion dollar write down they will have to take for next quarter because of the new health care bill.

    "This....is what change looks like."
    link?
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62P48W20100326

    Foxnews is really hyping it up. Megyn Kelly announced it as major breaking news last hour.
  • I Wear Pants
    dwccrew wrote:
    I Wear Pants wrote:


    Is a Porsche the right car for everyone?
    No, it is not; but you are comparing apples to oranges. We are comparing a tangible commodity to an intangible service. So for the best healthcare possible, the price tag will be higher. Just like the best education will be the most expensive.
    I Wear Pants wrote:
    Also, why is it so hard to realize that the traditional college student going straight from high school, 4 years in college and coming out with a degree doesn't happen nearly as often anymore.

    I realize this happens, but it has much more to do with kids changing their majors more often (because many more programs have been added) and the fact that once they graduate, it is a poor job market; so many return to school for continuing education i.e. Master's programs.

    I still think that after nearly 8 years removed from high school, you should either have a job while going to school or just realize school isn't for you. Not everyone is cut-out to go to school. IF people in this country would realize that, we'd be better off. People have lived beyond their means in this country for a long time and that is part of the reason we're in the mess we're in.

    I know I am not cut-out to be a doctor, so I never pursued that in school, I went a different route in college. Now I am 27, living very comfortably with a great job and I have insurance.
    I Wear Pants wrote: There are many more people now who are in their mid-twenties and still in school. This doesn't make them a failure or lazy or incapable of living on their own.

    No one said it did make them a failure or lazy, I am just saying they shouldn't have to remain on their parents insurance. I know many people are staying in school just because they can't find a job. So what happens when many people in their 30's continue their education and don't have insurance? Do we pass another bill?

    I Wear Pants wrote: They are just doing it differently. Chill out. If you're enrolled full time in college you shouldn't have to worry that you couldn't afford to get sick because you couldn't afford medication or the doctor. Maybe you can worry that you can't afford to get sick because you can't miss class but you shouldn't have to choose between buying your books/paying tuition and buying medicine or a doctor's visit.
    Many universities have medical coverage as a part of tuition. I know that at the University of Toledo (where I graduated from) they offered insurance with your tuition. Many schools that have medical centers do this, so I doubt that many college kids, even in their mid 20's, go uncovered. It will be the adults in their mid-20's that have no job and are not in college that will benefit from this. More welfare in a sense.
    On the first point. I'd argue that it takes longer to get a degree on average because the Universities are getting wise and are being run more like the businesses that they are. They realize that offering some upper level courses only every other semester or adding in some core curriculum requirements might keep some students around an extra semester along with their thousands of dollars

    The second bold point I need to ask if you had a problem with the age being 25 before I make my argument.
  • QuakerOats
    Add AT&T to the list -- $1 billion health care charge --- and all their employees and retirees who will be hit with the collateral damage.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62P48W20100326

    "As a result of the legislation, the company, which ended 2009 with 282,000 employees, said it will be evaluating prospective changes to the health care benefits it offers to employees at retirees"

    Change we can believe in ............
  • Footwedge
    QuakerOats wrote: Add AT&T to the list -- $1 billion health care charge --- and all their employees and retirees who will be hit with the collateral damage.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62P48W20100326

    "As a result of the legislation, the company, which ended 2009 with 282,000 employees, said it will be evaluating prospective changes to the health care benefits it offers to employees at retirees"

    Change we can believe in ............
    Imagine that....The oligarchs will have to tighten their golden parachute belts. If you ever worked for a top Fortune 100 company and saw first hand the corporate hedonistic and gluttonous ways, the way I have done, you might change your attitude.

    Screw AT &T.
  • dwccrew
    I Wear Pants wrote:
    On the first point. I'd argue that it takes longer to get a degree on average because the Universities are getting wise and are being run more like the businesses that they are. They realize that offering some upper level courses only every other semester or adding in some core curriculum requirements might keep some students around an extra semester along with their thousands of dollars
    I agree, it does take longer to get a degree. My 4 year degree was accomplished in 4.5 years, because only certain classes, as you stated, were offered every other semester. However, 8 years is excessive. At most, 5-5.5 years to get a Bachelor's Degree for a dedicated student. I think the cutoff age should be 23.

    I Wear Pants wrote: The second bold point I need to ask if you had a problem with the age being 25 before I make my argument.
    As I stated above, IMO, 23 should be the cutoff age. If one doesn't have a degree or job by then, they either aren't trying hard enough or aren't trying at all IMHO.
  • I Wear Pants
    dwccrew wrote:
    I Wear Pants wrote:
    On the first point. I'd argue that it takes longer to get a degree on average because the Universities are getting wise and are being run more like the businesses that they are. They realize that offering some upper level courses only every other semester or adding in some core curriculum requirements might keep some students around an extra semester along with their thousands of dollars
    I agree, it does take longer to get a degree. My 4 year degree was accomplished in 4.5 years, because only certain classes, as you stated, were offered every other semester. However, 8 years is excessive. At most, 5-5.5 years to get a Bachelor's Degree for a dedicated student. I think the cutoff age should be 23.

    I Wear Pants wrote: The second bold point I need to ask if you had a problem with the age being 25 before I make my argument.
    As I stated above, IMO, 23 should be the cutoff age. If one doesn't have a degree or job by then, they either aren't trying hard enough or aren't trying at all IMHO.
    See, you're assuming that non-traditional students are fuck ups.

    There are lots of people who work 2-3 years out of high school before going to college. Cutting off the care at 23 is like saying "if you haven't got a degree by now you might as well not even try" which is crazy considering the amount of people that take longer than that even if they go straight to college out of high school.
  • jhay78
    Footwedge wrote:
    QuakerOats wrote: Add AT&T to the list -- $1 billion health care charge --- and all their employees and retirees who will be hit with the collateral damage.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62P48W20100326

    "As a result of the legislation, the company, which ended 2009 with 282,000 employees, said it will be evaluating prospective changes to the health care benefits it offers to employees at retirees"

    Change we can believe in ............
    Imagine that....The oligarchs will have to tighten their golden parachute belts. If you ever worked for a top Fortune 100 company and saw first hand the corporate hedonistic and gluttonous ways, the way I have done, you might change your attitude.

    Screw AT &T.

    But the government, now those guys are pure and saintly and always operating within their means and never mess people out of their hard-earned living.
  • tk421
    jhay78 wrote:
    Footwedge wrote:
    QuakerOats wrote: Add AT&T to the list -- $1 billion health care charge --- and all their employees and retirees who will be hit with the collateral damage.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62P48W20100326

    "As a result of the legislation, the company, which ended 2009 with 282,000 employees, said it will be evaluating prospective changes to the health care benefits it offers to employees at retirees"

    Change we can believe in ............
    Imagine that....The oligarchs will have to tighten their golden parachute belts. If you ever worked for a top Fortune 100 company and saw first hand the corporate hedonistic and gluttonous ways, the way I have done, you might change your attitude.

    Screw AT &T.

    But the government, now those guys are pure and saintly and always operating within their means and never mess people out of their hard-earned living.
    Really. If anyone on here dares call corporations gluttonous and hedonistic, they better damn well say the same thing about the federal government, after all the government is leading the charge.
  • I Wear Pants
    jhay78 wrote:
    Footwedge wrote:
    QuakerOats wrote: Add AT&T to the list -- $1 billion health care charge --- and all their employees and retirees who will be hit with the collateral damage.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62P48W20100326

    "As a result of the legislation, the company, which ended 2009 with 282,000 employees, said it will be evaluating prospective changes to the health care benefits it offers to employees at retirees"

    Change we can believe in ............
    Imagine that....The oligarchs will have to tighten their golden parachute belts. If you ever worked for a top Fortune 100 company and saw first hand the corporate hedonistic and gluttonous ways, the way I have done, you might change your attitude.

    Screw AT &T.

    But the government, now those guys are pure and saintly and always operating within their means and never mess people out of their hard-earned living.
    Both are flawed beyond comprehension. Why is it that one is evil though?
  • QuakerOats
    Footwedge wrote:
    QuakerOats wrote: Add AT&T to the list -- $1 billion health care charge --- and all their employees and retirees who will be hit with the collateral damage.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62P48W20100326

    "As a result of the legislation, the company, which ended 2009 with 282,000 employees, said it will be evaluating prospective changes to the health care benefits it offers to employees at retirees"

    Change we can believe in ............
    Imagine that....The oligarchs will have to tighten their golden parachute belts. If you ever worked for a top Fortune 100 company and saw first hand the corporate hedonistic and gluttonous ways, the way I have done, you might change your attitude.

    Screw AT &T.
    That's fine. But it has been only the government that has grown in the last 2 years while the rest of the economy (those who totally fund the government) that have endured workforce reductions of 10-30% across the board, not to mention pay cuts and/or pay freezes for years.

    The public sector has no idea of the reality of the situation. When you can print money, what the hell kind of challenge is meeting a payroll.

    SCREW THE GOVERNMENT!!!
  • CenterBHSFan
    Why in the world, or better yet, who in the world wants to be dependent on their parents at 22, 23, 24, 25, or 26?!

    Good God people.
  • LJ
    CenterBHSFan wrote: Why in the world, or better yet, who in the world wants to be dependent on their parents at 22, 23, 24, 25, or 26?!

    Good God people.
    med students
    law students
    vet students
    etc etc etc

    Not Joe Nobody who has taken 8 years to finish his bachelor degree at 5 different college.

    Out of my gf's class of 138 at OSU, only 5 are graduating with no debt and only 27 with under $75,000 of debt. At 550 per quarter for 4 quarters a year for 4 years, it would have saved her $8800 in student debt if she could have stayed on her parents' insurance.
  • Little Danny
    I know of a lot of people who believe once their kid turns 18, they're on their own. They have them move out of the house and they have to pay their own way to school.

    I know of a lot of people who believe they'll pay/help out their kid up to four years of college education, but if the kid takes longer or wants to go for an advanced degree, they're on their own.

    What I am saying is this is a fundamental shift in expectations for parents regarding their adult children. Many are going to have to get used to the idea of taking care of Little Johnny for a lot longer than they originally intended.

    I can appreciate time and costs getting an advanced degree. When I went back to school and got my law degree, I went to the night program because I worked during the day. Since I was 24 years old at the time, I never expected my parents to pick up any of the tab-- and they didn't! My employer paid a nice chunk of my tuition and I had a couple scholarships/grants to help offset costs. Since I worked, I had my own health insurance. I did have some student loans but it was not too bad of a cost and was able to pay them off in five years.
  • LJ
    Little Danny wrote:

    What I am saying is this is a fundamental shift in expectations for parents regarding their adult children. Many are going to have to get used to the idea of taking care of Little Johnny for a lot longer than they originally intended.
    It's not forcing parent's to do anything. If it's an extra $50 on their employer health plan, I know a ton of parents' who would help their kids out like that while in professional school. Or what if they have multiple kids and are paying a flat rate family plan through their employer already?
    I can appreciate time and costs getting an advanced degree. When I went back to school and got my law degree, I went to the night program because I worked during the day. Since I was 24 years old at the time, I never expected my parents to pick up any of the tab-- and they didn't! My employer paid a nice chunk of my tuition and I had a couple scholarships/grants to help offset costs. Since I worked, I had my own health insurance. I did have some student loans but it was not too bad of a cost and was able to pay them off in five years.
    I would say that you have no idea of the costs of an advanced degree and doing it completely on your own. My gf will have over $200k of debt from vet school when she graduates. Most of her friends too. They don't have an employer paying for a "nice chunk" nor will they get them paid off in 5 years. Their parents' keeping them on their insurance and saving them $8800 would be a huge help.
  • CenterBHSFan
    Little Danny wrote: I know of a lot of people who believe once their kid turns 18, they're on their own.

    Personally, I was the opposite of that same line of thought.

    I wanted to be on my own and not have to deal with anybody else's input (I was very headstrong back then). I knew what kind of house I grew up in which was "my house, my money, my rules".
    Luckily for me, I was able to schedule my work schedule around each quarter. I stopped college at one point only to conintue the next go round, because it was hard.
    I didn't have the amount of debt that any variety of doctorate (as the example LJ gave) will give, and I didn't go to a more expensive school.
    So for me, it all worked out.
    Also, I didn't want to be the first one in my family to have to rely on parental help of any sort (the ones who went to college worked their way through also), so that was a personal challenge for me.
    I did borrow a little cash once, but I'm thinking it was after I was out of school, I really can't remember.

    At any rate, the point was that this was 20 years ago and things are definitely different, exponentially, than they are now. Things are just done differently and alot of families certainly changed dynamics with the times nowdays.
  • LJ
    CenterBHSFan wrote:

    At any rate, the point was that this was 20 years ago and things are definitely different, exponentially, than they are now. Things are just done differently and alot of families certainly changed dynamics with the times nowdays.
    Parents definitely paid for college for their kids 20 years ago. That is my sister's generation and all her friends had at least some of their college paid for by their parents and none of them were "rich" by any means.
  • derek bomar
    QuakerOats wrote: Add AT&T to the list -- $1 billion health care charge --- and all their employees and retirees who will be hit with the collateral damage.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62P48W20100326

    "As a result of the legislation, the company, which ended 2009 with 282,000 employees, said it will be evaluating prospective changes to the health care benefits it offers to employees at retirees"

    Change we can believe in ............
    they're having to now pay taxes on something they received subsidies for in the past...it's not the end of the world...closing the donut hole is a good thing.
  • CenterBHSFan
    LJ wrote:
    CenterBHSFan wrote:

    At any rate, the point was that this was 20 years ago and things are definitely different, exponentially, than they are now. Things are just done differently and alot of families certainly changed dynamics with the times nowdays.
    Parents definitely paid for college for their kids 20 years ago. That is my sister's generation and all her friends had at least some of their college paid for by their parents and none of them were "rich" by any means.
    Yeah I know that still happened 20 years ago. In fact, 2 of my really close friends had help - 1 got the free ride and the other got help with books and living expenses (she had tuition and a car payment to take care of). They were truly thankful for the help and I was happy for them, I just was more bullheaded than they were lol!
    I guess my point was that more and more young folks, as time goes by, are more likely to be hesitant to make the big leap. If I had to guess, I would probably say that the trend is definitely on the upswing moreso now than it was 20 years ago.
    There will always be exceptions to general rules, I think. And I also realize that not everybody thinks like me or others like me. I just can't imagine wanting to put myself into that position at all, back then or now.

    But, if we all thought like I did, this forum wouldn't be here! :D
  • gibby08
    Americans Don't Back Repeal
    While a new CNN/Opinion Research poll finds 56% of Americans disapprove of the new health care reform law, just 47% agree with the Republican strategy to repeal major provisions in the bill and replace them with new ones.

    Pollster Keating Holland explains: "That's because opposition to the new law comes in many different forms and not all of them benefit the GOP. Some Americans continue to say that they disapprove of the bill because they want even more government involvement in health care than the bill created. Only a quarter are against the entire bill; one in three support at least a few proposals in the new law. And a handful of Americans appear to dislike the bill but don't want Congress to spend any more time on health care."


    Read more: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/03/29/americans_dont_back_repeal.html#ixzz0jbGeYwIF
  • QuakerOats
    Rasmussen: 54% Favor Repeal of Healthcare

    One week after passage of the costliest healthcare legislation in the nation’s history, 54 percent of the nation's likely voters still favor repealing the new law, according to a Rasmussen poll. Forty-nine percent believe the new law will reduce the quality of care and want their state to sue the federal government for repeal.

    http://www.newsmax.com/
  • gibby08
    What a suprise Quaker...

    A right leaning site and a left leaning channel having differing numbers about repealing it

    Im shocked
  • fish82
    gibby08 wrote: What a suprise Quaker...

    A right leaning site and a left leaning channel having differing numbers about repealing it

    Im shocked
    Except for the pesky fact about the "right-leaning" sites record of accuracy, which pretty much kicks the shit out of CNN. ;)
  • majorspark
    gibby08 wrote: Americans Don't Back Repeal
    While a new CNN/Opinion Research poll finds 56% of Americans disapprove of the new health care reform law, just 47% agree with the Republican strategy to repeal major provisions in the bill and replace them with new ones.

    Pollster Keating Holland explains: "That's because opposition to the new law comes in many different forms and not all of them benefit the GOP. Some Americans continue to say that they disapprove of the bill because they want even more government involvement in health care than the bill created. Only a quarter are against the entire bill; one in three support at least a few proposals in the new law. And a handful of Americans appear to dislike the bill but don't want Congress to spend any more time on health care."


    Read more: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/03/29/americans_dont_back_repeal.html#ixzz0jbGeYwIF
    Considering the margin of error of any poll, this poll basically says that the country is split 50/50 over whether to take the extreme measure of repealing the bill or let it remain law. I would say that when you have 50% demanding the repeal of major legislation and the other 50% not in favor of taking the extreme step in repealing it, but yet having 42% of the 50% actually in favor of the bill, it is not a positive sign for those who are currently in power and took part in passing the bill.

    In our history's past large vocal minorities have caused quite a bit of political turmoil, they fomented rebellion during the revolution, they brought about the Civil War, and they turned the population against the policies of the federal government during Vietnam, as well as other more minor issues. In other words I would not dismiss large vocal minorities.

    http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/currentprojects/TAHv3/Content/PDFs/Loyalists_Thirteen_Colonies.pdf
    http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/American-Revolution
    http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/07/opinion/l-polls-tell-us-no-more-than-where-we-are-vietnam-war-opinion-139188.html?pagewanted=1
    http://www.civilwarhome.com/population1860.htm
  • dwccrew
    I Wear Pants wrote:
    dwccrew wrote:
    I Wear Pants wrote:
    On the first point. I'd argue that it takes longer to get a degree on average because the Universities are getting wise and are being run more like the businesses that they are. They realize that offering some upper level courses only every other semester or adding in some core curriculum requirements might keep some students around an extra semester along with their thousands of dollars
    I agree, it does take longer to get a degree. My 4 year degree was accomplished in 4.5 years, because only certain classes, as you stated, were offered every other semester. However, 8 years is excessive. At most, 5-5.5 years to get a Bachelor's Degree for a dedicated student. I think the cutoff age should be 23.

    I Wear Pants wrote: The second bold point I need to ask if you had a problem with the age being 25 before I make my argument.
    As I stated above, IMO, 23 should be the cutoff age. If one doesn't have a degree or job by then, they either aren't trying hard enough or aren't trying at all IMHO.
    See, you're assuming that non-traditional students are fuck ups.

    There are lots of people who work 2-3 years out of high school before going to college. Cutting off the care at 23 is like saying "if you haven't got a degree by now you might as well not even try" which is crazy considering the amount of people that take longer than that even if they go straight to college out of high school.
    If the cutoff age is 23, then the people coming out of high school and joining the workforce are aware of that. What if people decide to work 4-6 years after high school then decide to go to college? This would make them 22-24 years old. So they would still be in college after the age of 26. Should we then raise the age in which they are still covered under their parents?

    It is my belief that people should be personally responsible for themselves. If people know that age 23 is the cutoff, then they should plan accordingly. 23 or 26, there isn't much of a difference, except IMO, by the time someone is 26, they should be able to cover their own expenses, including insurance.

    And again, many colleges have insurance plans through the school. So, let's take college students age 26 or below out of the equation. What about all the other 26 year olds or below that are not in college and still getting covered by mommy and daddy?

    Parents shouldn't be forced to have to pay for their adult child's insurance if they don't feel they should.
  • I Wear Pants
    dwccrew wrote:
    I Wear Pants wrote:
    dwccrew wrote:
    I Wear Pants wrote:
    On the first point. I'd argue that it takes longer to get a degree on average because the Universities are getting wise and are being run more like the businesses that they are. They realize that offering some upper level courses only every other semester or adding in some core curriculum requirements might keep some students around an extra semester along with their thousands of dollars
    I agree, it does take longer to get a degree. My 4 year degree was accomplished in 4.5 years, because only certain classes, as you stated, were offered every other semester. However, 8 years is excessive. At most, 5-5.5 years to get a Bachelor's Degree for a dedicated student. I think the cutoff age should be 23.

    I Wear Pants wrote: The second bold point I need to ask if you had a problem with the age being 25 before I make my argument.
    As I stated above, IMO, 23 should be the cutoff age. If one doesn't have a degree or job by then, they either aren't trying hard enough or aren't trying at all IMHO.
    See, you're assuming that non-traditional students are fuck ups.

    There are lots of people who work 2-3 years out of high school before going to college. Cutting off the care at 23 is like saying "if you haven't got a degree by now you might as well not even try" which is crazy considering the amount of people that take longer than that even if they go straight to college out of high school.
    If the cutoff age is 23, then the people coming out of high school and joining the workforce are aware of that. What if people decide to work 4-6 years after high school then decide to go to college? This would make them 22-24 years old. So they would still be in college after the age of 26. Should we then raise the age in which they are still covered under their parents?

    It is my belief that people should be personally responsible for themselves. If people know that age 23 is the cutoff, then they should plan accordingly. 23 or 26, there isn't much of a difference, except IMO, by the time someone is 26, they should be able to cover their own expenses, including insurance.

    And again, many colleges have insurance plans through the school. So, let's take college students age 26 or below out of the equation. What about all the other 26 year olds or below that are not in college and still getting covered by mommy and daddy?

    Parents shouldn't be forced to have to pay for their adult child's insurance if they don't feel they should.
    They aren't forced to.