Forum Groups

 

Forums / Politics / Debate Aftermath

Debate Aftermath

52 posts
  1. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    10/9/2012 11:10 AM
    Sandy Clark, CGCS said: The same would happen if insurance had to compete nationally. You would be the winner because of competition for both choice and price.


    This is precisely what Obamacare does.



  2. Sandy Clark
    Sandy Clark avatar
    0 posts
    10/9/2012 11:10 AM
    Scott, how realistically does that happen when so many companies will drop coverage because the fine is cheaper? At Barona, I had three choices to choose from. If they drop medical coverage, I have one and that is the governments. If I choose to go on Medicare, the plan wants to deprive me of advantage plans I may choose to pay more for. I don't see any competitive choices!



  3. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    10/9/2012 12:10 PM
    Sandy Clark, CGCS said: Scott, how realistically does that happen when so many companies will drop coverage because the fine is cheaper? At Barona, I had three choices to choose from. If they drop medical coverage, I have one and that is the governments. If I choose to go on Medicare, the plan wants to deprive me of advantage plans I may choose to pay more for. I don't see any competitive choices!


    It will be more like car insurance. Instead of only a few companies to choose from you will have many more. Also, if you employers choose to pay a fine, why were the providing insurance before when there was no fine?



  4. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    10/9/2012 3:10 PM
    Sandy as I understand it there will be an insurance exchange of private providers fighting for your business under the Affordable Care Act.

    The only reason cable is somewhat competitive is because of satellite and now things like u-verse, the only thing that probably keeps cable (and I suppose that is debatable since the government as in local is involved) in check is typically the company has paid a franchise fee to be the sole cable provider for that community and they must run all price increases through the city government. (of course that could have all changed now, but I thought it was how it worked).

    Sandy when you say you have three choices from your employer, is that in terms of the type of coverage you want to pay for? We had a similar set up at my last employer, depending on what I wanted to pay, it gave me a choice of which plan with the percentages and deductibles usually different. Here with the city it is all one in the same. If all those companies choose to pay a fine, wouldn't that possibly make insurance cheaper for you as the insurance companies will now compete for all those that have lost their plan through their employer? It would be like buying car insurance?

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  5. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    10/9/2012 3:10 PM
    You will not be compelled to use the insurance exchanges. It would make sense financially to those who do not get insurance from their work or medicaid. Those who are not comfortable using the exchanges for some reason will still be able to buy insurance without using the exchange.



  6. James Schmid
    James Schmid avatar
    1 posts
    10/9/2012 7:10 PM
    Jon Gansen said: [quote">

    Obamacare creates a board of unelected bureaucrats



    I don't know if you have noticed, but of late our elected officials have not been able to do much. Perhaps putting people in place whos job it is to do things may result in more things getting done.

    Check me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that elected bureaucrats could remove the unelected bureaucrats if necessary.



  7. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    10/9/2012 7:10 PM
    James Schmid said: I don't know if you have noticed, but of late our elected officials have not been able to do much. Perhaps putting people in place whos job it is to do things may result in more things getting done.

    Check me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that elected bureaucrats could remove the unelected bureaucrats if necessary.


    I think that normally a Chief Executive like a President or a Governor are the only ones that can be removed by elected officials. Individuals and Committee Members normally answer to the Chief Executive. Our congress has decided not to do much in order to make Obama look bad. I think it makes congress look bad and I hope others agree on Election Day.



  8. McCallum David K
    McCallum David K avatar
    10/10/2012 7:10 AM
    In my local paper today, headlines..........." Health law spurs growth of part-time workers"...........wonder why that is? The article dealt with restaurants primarily........Olive Garden, Red Lobster etc ......but the same principal can apply in many industries. One of the executives quoted stated there's not a company in the industry not looking at this very closely in a means to reduce costs.

    The biggest problem with the running of our government stems from the non elected, career bureaucrats that actually control things vs the elected politicians...........we know going in their crooks and only out for themselves. The unknown guys and gals behind the scenes that no one knows is the big problem. They have their own little fiefdoms to operate.



  9. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    10/10/2012 8:10 AM
    David McCallum said: In my local paper today, headlines..........." Health law spurs growth of part-time workers"...........wonder why that is? The article dealt with restaurants primarily........Olive Garden, Red Lobster etc ......but the same principal can apply in many industries. One of the executives quoted stated there's not a company in the industry not looking at this very closely in a means to reduce costs.

    This has more to do with the cost of benefits period. The idea behind Obamacare is that these costs will come down. My daughter just graduated as a dental hygenist and has to work for three dentists because individually they do not want to offer healthcare. What do you suppose is going to happen when she gets one that will? In addition, it is everyone who offers benefits including municipal golf courses are utilizing more part-time employees.

    The biggest problem with the running of our government stems from the non elected, career bureaucrats that actually control things vs the elected politicians...........we know going in their crooks and only out for themselves. The unknown guys and gals behind the scenes that no one knows is the big problem. They have their own little fiefdoms to operate.

    From my experience, elected officials do a pretty good job overseeing the government. Many people including former CEOs and forensic accountants voluteer to provide oversight. We get into trouble when accusations and changes are made with a mob mentality.



  10. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    10/10/2012 8:10 AM
    Doesn't the law state that for companies with 50 or more full time employees or the equivalent? That is looking at 2000 hours per week for staff. That would mean if you hire 65 employees at 30 hours a week your under the exemption? Or you can hire up to 100 people for 20 hour work weeks? I think most of those companies that David is talking about hire part timers any way just because it's typically students or 2nd jobs for most people in the industry, they seem to have more flexible schedules to provide the services when customers want them. I know even most of the people we hire here at the golf course don't work 40 hours per week, same with the clubhouse and they are seasonal, but I wonder how that will work with us being a city with 1000 employees?

    My one question is this, and it's fueled by what one of our local restaurants have done. Say if a Red Lobster has 3 restaurants in a city, does each one get to count as one? Or like our McDonald's franchises here in our town, one of them owns at least 3 if not 4 stores, (one might be a town over) How will they get around the 50 employee or 2000 hour mark?

    We have neighbors who our son had been in classes with since elementary school. The own restaurants, they just opened their 3rd location. The new health care law didn't stop them from growing.....before they opened this third location they had about 38 employees, as the mom said, they were like having 38 more kids along with their own. I don't know if that was their one location or the two combined, but with a third I would think they will go over the 50 employee mark, although the question might be how many hours, can they keep each restaurant separate when the do their reporting?

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  11. Albert Kronwall
    Albert Kronwall avatar
    0 posts
    10/10/2012 8:10 AM
    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said: Our congress has decided not to do much in order to make Obama look bad. I think it makes congress look bad and I hope others agree on Election Day.


    Harry Reid and the Democrat run Senate has not even proposed a budget in the last four years. The Presidents budget, each of the last four years, did not receive one single vote, even from Democrats.

    The Republicans have passed a budget in the House every year. House Republicans have passed 39 jobs bills that are currently stuck in the Democrat controlled Senate.

    So how can you say that the republicans are trying to make Obama look bad? Obama and the democrats are doing a fine job of making Obama look bad all on their own.



  12. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    10/10/2012 8:10 AM
    Sandy Clark, CGCS said: Scott, how realistically does that happen when so many companies will drop coverage because the fine is cheaper? At Barona, I had three choices to choose from. If they drop medical coverage, I have one and that is the governments. If I choose to go on Medicare, the plan wants to deprive me of advantage plans I may choose to pay more for. I don't see any competitive choices!


    Sandy your company could look at competitive choices to offer coverage for all their employees, once they pick a insurance company, they would want all their employees to be on the same policy with some possible differences in out of pocket and percentage of coverage, but it would be all through one insurance company, it would be a larger pool and insurance would be cheaper overall. I don't see how a company could or would offer different choices, it would be a pain to manage. If your employer would drop insurance all together then you would be allowed to go out on the market and look at all the competitors, I guess you could not obtain insurance through your employer and go out on the market yourself. I've been with employers that I pay so much for myself and so much for my family, a percentage so to speak, and currently I pay none of my insurance premium but all the premium cost for my family. If I wanted to I could go shop theirs. That would be competition, but I would be afraid we could get dropped if pre-existing conditions go away, premiums could sky rocket, much better being in a group.

    My question I wonder, for those companies that already offer insurance, would they really drop it and pay the fine? I only see that if cost really sky rocket, since the cost of the fine plus not being able to deduct their portion of the insurance premiums off their taxes make more financial sense. And there could be other cost, as in not being able to keep good employees who might leave for another employer who would offer insurance.

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  13. Sandy Clark
    Sandy Clark avatar
    0 posts
    10/10/2012 9:10 AM
    Only 15 states have even begun to set up these exchanges. My Kiplinger Report letter this week stated that the Federal Government will end up running the exchanges because most states are not in any financial position to establish or operate them. Barona is a great company and probably wouldn't drop health care but companies all over the country have determined the fine to be less costly than the health care costs. I know you guys want this to work but again I ask, which government program has ever lived up to its promise? Every single one is broke or going broke. Without modifications they will fail, yet anyone proposing a different model is accused of being cold, heartless and of destroying the program. If you want cradle to grave government help, I guess you can pay European style taxes but even they are broke. I do not understand the optimism you guys have for this program. It will cost far more than predicted and will deliver far less than promised. We have Moonbeam Jerry Brown wanting to raise taxes, Obamacare raising taxes, the United Nations wanting to tax us. When does this redistribution of wealth end?



  14. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    10/10/2012 11:10 AM
    Albert Kronwall said: Harry Reid and the Democratically run Senate has not even proposed a budget in the last four years. The Presidents budget, each of the last four years, did not receive one single vote, even from Democrats.

    This was a Republican stategy. By attaching amendments that were universally unacceptable to the left to a budget that was unacceptable to the right,they attempted to make the administration look bad.

    The Republicans have passed a budget in the House every year. House Republicans have passed 39 jobs bills that are currently stuck in the Democrat controlled Senate.

    The US Budget is worthless without Appropriations. The right has passed bills with the word "Job" in them, but they had nothing to do with creating jobs.

    So how can you say that the republicans are trying to make Obama look bad? Obama and the democrats are doing a fine job of making Obama look bad all on their own.



  15. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    10/10/2012 11:10 AM
    Sandy Clark, CGCS said: Only 15 states have even begun to set up these exchanges. My Kiplinger Report letter this week stated that the Federal Government will end up running the exchanges because most states are not in any financial position to establish or operate them. Barona is a great company and probably wouldn't drop health care but companies all over the country have determined the fine to be less costly than the health care costs. I know you guys want this to work but again I ask, which government program has ever lived up to its promise? Every single one is broke or going broke. Without modifications they will fail, yet anyone proposing a different model is accused of being cold, heartless and of destroying the program. If you want cradle to grave government help, I guess you can pay European style taxes but even they are broke. I do not understand the optimism you guys have for this program. It will cost far more than predicted and will deliver far less than promised. We have Moonbeam Jerry Brown wanting to raise taxes, Obamacare raising taxes, the United Nations wanting to tax us. When does this redistribution of wealth end?


    Sandy we were optimistic about this program because what was going on without it wasn't sustainable either. Medical cost were escalating so much that people couldn't afford to get sick, and if they did, they could lose their insurance, with the maximum payouts of plans, one bad illness or genetic diseases was causing people to go bankrupt, hard working people who pay their taxes and purchase things to keep the economy running. Heck before President Obama got it passed, it's been a Republican idea all the way back to President Nixon.

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  16. Albert Kronwall
    Albert Kronwall avatar
    0 posts
    10/10/2012 12:10 PM
    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said:
    Albert Kronwall said: Harry Reid and the Democratically run Senate has not even proposed a budget in the last four years. The Presidents budget, each of the last four years, did not receive one single vote, even from Democrats.

    This was a Republican stategy. By attaching amendments that were universally unacceptable to the left to a budget that was unacceptable to the right,they attempted to make the administration look bad.

    The Republicans have passed a budget in the House every year. House Republicans have passed 39 jobs bills that are currently stuck in the Democrat controlled Senate.

    The US Budget is worthless without Appropriations. The right has passed bills with the word "Job" in them, but they had nothing to do with creating jobs.

    So how can you say that the republicans are trying to make Obama look bad? Obama and the democrats are doing a fine job of making Obama look bad all on their own.

    Scott,

    Your support of Obama's no vote budget and the Senates failure to even attempt to propose a budget is pure demagoguery to confuse the points made. The democrats have the majority vote in the senate; they can pass whatever they want without any consideration of what senate republicans want.

    Each branch of congress submits a budget and then they negotiate a final budget. That's hard to do when one branch fails to even make an attempt to do their constitutional duty. As our friend Mel says "it takes two to tango"

    Your response to the jobs bills is also demagoguery gibberish. You obviously haven't read any of the proposed Jobs Bills.

    Your practice of throwing crap at the wall and see if anything sticks is pretty transparent to the rest of us on this forum. That may have worked before Obama was elected because he didn't have a record. Now he has a record to defend and all he wants to talk about is Big Bird. Libya, national debt, jobs, are just speed bumps to him. I guess that tells us where his priorities lie.



  17. McCallum David K
    McCallum David K avatar
    10/10/2012 1:10 PM
    No Libya is not a topic his administration wants to discuss at the moment after watching congressional hearings today. One diplomat was asked point blank if they had requested additional security and had it been denied. He answered yes to both questions. The next question was but "I see here you all received a pay increase, for what reason?"...........the reply " we received a bump in hazardous duty pay because of a THREAT INCREASE"...........amazing.......simply amazing......... he better stick to Big Bird.........no one has died .



  18. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    10/10/2012 1:10 PM
    Andy,

    You are wrong about Democrats doing whatever they want in the Senate, there was this little used thing, well until recently it wasn't used often, that can be used to stop whatever the Democrats want to do, it's called a filibuster. Unless there were 60 democrats in the Senate, they can't do anything the Republicans don't want done.

    I don't know if that has even stopped the democrats from submitting budgets anyway, which is wrong, put your stuff on the table and we will actually see who wants to lead and who doesn't.

    I do know the president submitted a budget and of course the republicans will say it didn't even get support from his own party but the gutless democrats in the house knew they couldn't win a vote against to house republicans since they just want the president to fail, so they would not support the presidents budget to save their own political jobs. I guess that just sums up this country's problem in a nut shell, neither party is willing to work together for the common good of us.

    But to the point of your complaint, it isn't true.

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  19. Albert Kronwall
    Albert Kronwall avatar
    0 posts
    10/10/2012 3:10 PM
    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: Andy,

    You are wrong about Democrats doing whatever they want in the Senate, there was this little used thing, well until recently it wasn't used often, that can be used to stop whatever the Democrats want to do, it's called a filibuster. Unless there were 60 democrats in the Senate, they can't do anything the Republicans don't want done.

    I don't know if that has even stopped the democrats from submitting budgets anyway, which is wrong, put your stuff on the table and we will actually see who wants to lead and who doesn't.

    I do know the president submitted a budget and of course the republicans will say it didn't even get support from his own party but the gutless democrats in the house knew they couldn't win a vote against to house republicans since they just want the president to fail, so they would not support the presidents budget to save their own political jobs. I guess that just sums up this country's problem in a nut shell, neither party is willing to work together for the common good of us.

    But to the point of your complaint, it isn't true.

    Mel

    I respectfully disagree Mel. John Horney of the Center On Budget And Policy Priorities is the parlimentary procedure go to guy in Washington DC and he states the following:

    It's true that you cannot filibuster a budget resolution in the Senate, because the Budget Act provides special rules for consideration of a budget resolution, including a time limit on debate. So the Senate can pass a resolution with only a majority vote.

    As for the "gutless democrats", your words not mine, voting for a budget that increases taxes on the middle class and the poor would be political suicide. It's said that the #1 job of a politician is to get re-elected, and they would surely loose their next election having voted for Obamacare and a budget that increases taxes on the people they claim to represent.



  20. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    10/10/2012 4:10 PM
    Budget Resolutions cannot be filibustered because they do not authorize spending and they are not legislation. They provide a guideline. Appropriations Committees authorize actual expenditures. It is true that the Republicans used the filibuster hinder the forward progress of the Obama Administration and the American People just as Mitch McConnell promised.



  21. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    10/10/2012 4:10 PM
    Albert Kronwall said:
    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: Andy,

    You are wrong about Democrats doing whatever they want in the Senate, there was this little used thing, well until recently it wasn't used often, that can be used to stop whatever the Democrats want to do, it's called a filibuster. Unless there were 60 democrats in the Senate, they can't do anything the Republicans don't want done.

    I don't know if that has even stopped the democrats from submitting budgets anyway, which is wrong, put your stuff on the table and we will actually see who wants to lead and who doesn't.

    I do know the president submitted a budget and of course the republicans will say it didn't even get support from his own party but the gutless democrats in the house knew they couldn't win a vote against to house republicans since they just want the president to fail, so they would not support the presidents budget to save their own political jobs. I guess that just sums up this country's problem in a nut shell, neither party is willing to work together for the common good of us.

    But to the point of your complaint, it isn't true.

    Mel

    I respectfully disagree Mel. John Horney of the Center On Budget And Policy Priorities is the parlimentary procedure go to guy in Washington DC and he states the following:

    It's true that you cannot filibuster a budget resolution in the Senate, because the Budget Act provides special rules for consideration of a budget resolution, including a time limit on debate. So the Senate can pass a resolution with only a majority vote.

    As for the "gutless democrats", your words not mine, voting for a budget that increases taxes on the middle class and the poor would be political suicide. It's said that the #1 job of a politician is to get re-elected, and they would surely loose their next election having voted for Obamacare and a budget that increases taxes on the people they claim to represent.


    Andy upon some quick searching of my own, I did see a Talking Points Memo agreeing with what you said about a budget resolution. Yes I did call democrats gutless but there are those on the right as well that are gutless in regards that they don't stand up and work with the other party either.

    I also found the following from 2011 on Huffington Post, even though I'm not the parliamentarian, I don't know if this article would still allow a budget vote to be cast, as all other business would be held up?

    [quote">Commits To Filibustering Anything Prior To Budget, Tax Cuts

    WASHINGTON -- The entire Republican Senate caucus has signed a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid, informing him that they will filibuster any legislative measure that comes before the Senate prior to the body considering a budget or tax cut legislation

    The Associated Press first reported the letter last night. But on Wednesday morning Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's office passed a copy on to reporters, showing that he had secured signatures from every Senate Republican.

    "[W]e write to inform you that we will not agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers," the letter reads. "With little time left in this Congressional session, legislative scheduling should be focused on these critical priorities. While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate's attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike."

    The maneuver comes, notably, just hours after congressional leadership met with President Barack Obama in an effort to chart out how to work in a bipartisan fashion. It also dropped on the same day that a bipartisan group of lawmakers was set to meet with the Secretary of the Treasury and head of the Office of Management and Budget to discuss a resolution to the tax cut debate. Pointing to the latter, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) took the floor on Wednesday to condemn, what he called, a "cynical" tactic to delay legislative progress.

    "My Republican colleagues knew [about the tax cuts meeting] as they drafted this letter," Reid said. "Therefore, they also know that the true effect of this letter is to prevent the Senate from acting on many important issues that have bipartisan support. With this letter they have simply put in writing the political strategy the Republicans have pursued this entire congress: Mainly, obstruct and delay, obstruct delay action on critical matters, and then blame the Democrats for not addressing the needs of the American people. Very cynical but very obvious and very transparent."

    Democrats have been planning to deal with immigration reform and the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell legislation during the lame duck session. A continuing resolution for the budget was on the docket, as was one for tax cuts. But there was no sense about prioritizing those two before the former measures.


    How Reid and the White House respond to the letter could give observers a fairly strong sense, not only about how the lame duck session will play out, but also how bipartisanship will be defined in the closing years of Obama's first term in office.


    It was reported in Dec. of 2010 and update in May of 2011.

    Now if I read this right, the republicans in the senate would do everything in their power to stop business until they got their tax cuts and a budget, here we continued to keep going in debt and the republicans were still worried about tax cuts, that is gutless too.

    Andy, I am willing to cast issues with the democrats when they happen, both parties are letting us down, it seems you only want to blame the democrats the republicans are always right? I don't think so.

    And I also see Scott has an explanation also.

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  22. Albert Kronwall
    Albert Kronwall avatar
    0 posts
    10/11/2012 10:10 AM
    Scott Wahlin, CGCS said: Budget Resolutions cannot be filibustered because they do not authorize spending and they are not legislation. They provide a guideline. Appropriations Committees authorize actual expenditures. It is true that the Republicans used the filibuster hinder the forward progress of the Obama Administration and the American People just as Mitch McConnell promised.


    Budget Bills have to be agreed on before the Appropriations Committees can authorize actual expenditures. Congress never made it past the budget process.

    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said:
    Andy, I am willing to cast issues with the democrats when they happen, both parties are letting us down, it seems you only want to blame the democrats the republicans are always right? I don't think so.
    Mel


    I do agree with you that congress as a whole has let the American people down in it's failure to negotiate and compromise so we can move this country in the right direction. (no pun intended) From my perspective I see the people that lean to the left on this forum and elsewhere are always blaming Bush and the Republicans for the sink hole we are in, and I think both sides have a share of responsibility for being in this situation. I fundamentally disagree with Obama's plan to get things turned around. The Obama administration's budget request contained $2.627 trillion in revenues and $3.729 trillion in outlays. I don't see that as a path to success, so I am voicing my opinion.



View or change your forums profile here.