Conservative VS Liberal

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Is it true that when they wanted to start a union in that mine, the owner threatened people so they wouldn't do it? Why exactly was this mine not unionized?

As I posted elsewhere, he is known to be anti-union. I'll do more research on his tactics. It should come as no surprise that most of the biggest mining disasters (deaths) happen in non-union mines.

But the republicans, conservatives and teabaggers stand with the mining company. And against unions.

[BJean 16]

It really makes me want to cry.

How can people put the value of money over that of human life?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

It really makes me want to cry.

How can people put the value of money over that of human life?

From the common criminal to the corrupt CEO, all of those who stand on the wrong side find ways to justify what they do. The right-wing anti-government militias, the Timothy McVeighs - in their demented minds they are justified for what they think and do.

And as I've said before, I see this same mentality with the tea party. Those of us who see the government as we the people and who want to make it work for we the people have to be diligent to keep it from being hijacked by the radicals on the right who see the government as the enemy. They are dangerous in their thinking and many of their tactics.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Massey CEO's Blankenship's union busting tactics:

Back in 1984-1985, the company, then called AT Massey, used vicious strikebreaking tactics, with all-out support of President Ronald Reagan, to bust a strike by the United Mine Workers seeking union recognition at Massey mines in Logan County, W. Va.

Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship reported $24 million in salary and stock options in 2007 and $11.2 million in 2008. Earlier this year, he cashed in 200,000 stock options pocketing $3.8 million.

In 2002, President George W. Bush named Massey Energy executive Stanley Suboleski to the review commission of the Mine Safety and Health Administration that oversees enforcement-or lack thereof-of the Federal Mine Act. Blankenship contributed $3 million to elect a West Virginia Supreme Court Justice. He took one of the Supreme Court justices on a junket to the French Riviera.

Blankenship is a major moneybag for the Republican Party contributing $30,400 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee and thousands more to GOP Senate candidates Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania and Rob Portman in Ohio.

peoplesworld.org

Do you see where and with whom the republicans stand? Why would you ever want to stand with these criminals? And it was all sanctioned by republican Saint Ronnie.

And we know with all of bush's appointments it was always a case of the fox watching the hen house.

[BJean 16]

Once again I know that big business Republicans were very happy with President Reagan who they supported and helped to elect. But regular Republicans, like many Democrats were really not happy with President Reagan during much of the time he was in office. Like the regular folks in California didn't like him when he was their Governor. The Californians tried to tell everybody when he was running for president, but of course the monied Republicans used a misleading PR campaign that got him in office.

Now Republicans of all stripe remember it differently. And they've done a good job of rewriting that history. Now he was a wonderful president - brilliant, fair and incredibly awe inspiring. Those of us who lived through it remember it the way it really was.

He was a puppet, an actor who was very convincing to those who weren't paying much attention. That's the way those who were paying attention remember it.

[LeighaMason 19]

“These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people” Abraham Lincoln

[ariscus99 1]

“These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people” Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln, like every other politician ever, said many things he didn't believe to please the people he wanted support from, e.g. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races [the crowd applauds] – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people, and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the black and white races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” Abraham Lincoln.

Edited April 13, 2010 by ariscus99

[BJean 16]

Well isn't that special!

[tdslf1 0]

Just a question. Do the teabaggers know that their movement is based on the opposite of their tax claim? Boston Tea party came about because of tax cuts. The richest merchant who sold tea got a tax cut and all the small merchants who sold tea didn't so the small merchants threw their tea bags into the Water, creating the Boston Tea party. Isn't the teabaggers claim that the governmet is raising their taxes? This just seems ironic to me. Big business gets ahead again..........

[ariscus99 1]

Just a question. Do the teabaggers know that their movement is based on the opposite of their tax claim? Boston Tea party came about because of tax cuts. The richest merchant who sold tea got a tax cut and all the small merchants who sold tea didn't so the small merchants threw their tea bags into the Water, creating the Boston Tea party. Isn't the teabaggers claim that the governmet is raising their taxes? This just seems ironic to me. Big business gets ahead again..........

Wasn't the tea party mostly due to the whole "taxation without representation"? The tax cuts came because those merchants were friends with the British, and the others had no way of doing anything about it. Nowadays we have an elected government right, so if they don't do what we want we vote them out. The tea party movement is largely about getting rid of the representatives who aren't doing what they want, which is their right to do if they are a majority correct?

[BJean 16]

The woman president of her Tea Bag group that I heard speak is against the government - period. And they think that big business is getting a bad rap. She says that big businesses provide jobs and so we should give them breaks and subsidies.

Nevermind that many of the corporate conglomerates take their manufacturing overseas. Plus I heard today that they pay taxes in those countries and often do not pay taxes here. They like this because the taxes they pay in the other countries are less than what they might have to pay here. So by not requiring them to pay taxes here we're essentially rewarding them for taking their jobs out of this country.

Republicans and big business backers say that if we tax them like everybody else, those big businesses will move their entire company out of the U.S. But you see since they are not providing many jobs here and they aren't paying taxes here what the heck good are they to us anyway? They're actually harming us.

But don't try to tell it to the Tea Baggers. They have no capacity for serious logic.

[pattygreen 5]

When all of the provisions in the HC reform bill kick in by 2014, it may become less expensive for businesses to pay the fine for not offering HI to their employees instead of offering HC.

Here's an example of why: Eldridge Inc., a Westchester, PA waste transport Co. has 55 employees and pays more than $600,000. to cover them and their families.

While the new law includes $2000. fine for not covering workers, it exempts the first 30 employees. So Eldridge's fine would be only $50,000. for failing to cover 25 workers. Eliminating HC and paying the fine would save the company $550,000.

Tell me, how will this HC bill lower the cost of HC for people? These workers are now going to have to get their own Ins. somewhere else, or have none.

This bill was NEVER about HC. It was about taking another step closer towards the government socializing the nation! And, what does student loans have to do with HC? Why was that in the bill? The federal government is now in charge of all college loans. Talk about nerve!

[tdslf1 0]

Please show some proof on insurance from this company that cost him 600,000 a year for 25 people. Is this some kind of elderly company, is this handicap people, is this complete and full coverage, what?

[Cleo's Mom 257]

When all of the provisions in the HC reform bill kick in by 2014, it may become less expensive for businesses to pay the fine for not offering HI to their employees instead of offering HC.

Here's an example of why: Eldridge Inc., a Westchester, PA waste transport Co. has 55 employees and pays more than $600,000. to cover them and their families.

While the new law includes $2000. fine for not covering workers, it exempts the first 30 employees. So Eldridge's fine would be only $50,000. for failing to cover 25 workers. Eliminating HC and paying the fine would save the company $550,000.

Tell me, how will this HC bill lower the cost of HC for people? These workers are now going to have to get their own Ins. somewhere else, or have none.

This bill was NEVER about HC. It was about taking another step closer towards the government socializing the nation! And, what does student loans have to do with HC? Why was that in the bill? The federal government is now in charge of all college loans. Talk about nerve!

from dailykos:

Last month, a monumental step was taken in America's promise to make health care a right for every American and not a privilege for only those who can afford it. It was but a first step, but a damned good first step. But some, under the guise of a promise to help people fight insurance company abuses, cannot help the urge to malign the achievement of the new law.

There are several pieces of misinformation being spread here.

One of the worst is that without direct price control authority in the hands of regulators - or at least the authority to control any increases in price - insurance affordability is nothing but smoke and mirrors. That's false. There are several ways the new law delivers on affordability.

The Individual Mandate, Elimination of Pre-Existing Conditions and Community Rating: Recall that the individual mandate is only applicable to those who can find insurance for under 8% of their income. That's a maximum. So if insurers want people subject to the individual mandate, they must offer insurance within those limits, at least for people with incomes that is more than 400% of the federal poverty level. In other words, for an individual with an income of $45,000 per year (who gets no subsidies), insurance companies must offer coverage costing $3,600 or less in premiums. Given that insurance companies are not allowed to vary prices based on income, they must offer that plan to all individuals with all income levels.

Now, what are the incentives for the insurance companies to offer a plan at all, other than the fact that they want people subject to the individual mandates. Why would they care if people are subject to the individual mandate? Because, you see, they will no longer be able to deny (or even more) based on a pre-existing condition. If they do not offer affordable coverage and people are exempt from the mandate, they may well wait until they get sick to get coverage, knowing they cannot be turned down, and that they must be given the same rate as a person without that condition of the same age and smoking habit. That is not something insurance companies want. The only way for them to make money is to offer coverage to healthy people who won't use care all that much at a reasonable rate. And the law says that if they do, they must provide coverage at that rate to anyone else of the same age and smoking habit, regardless of health status.

Insurers can vary insurance premiums by up to a factor of 3 based on age, which is not a good thing. Nonetheless, to do this, insurance companies will have to keep the rates of young people low enough so that enough of them stay in the system (the younger you are, generally speaking, the healthier you are, but also the less you make and the easier it is for you to be exempted from the mandate).

Medical Loss Ratio Requirements: Individual plans will have a MLR of 80% and group plans 85%. Meaning that an insurance company must spend that much of their premium revenue on actual care rather than administrative expenses/profits. If they do not, they must write you a check for the difference at the end of the year, which is a pretty good incentive to keep the premiums reasonable. Keep in mind that in the individual market right now, the MLR is as low as 60%, despite the insurance industry whining about how much they spend on care.

Actual Premium Caps and Out-of-Pocket Limits: The final legislation tightened up the actual premium caps for people receiving subsidies (yes, I said premium caps) and out-of-pocket limits for everyone.

I had prepared a full table including premium caps and out-of-pocket maximums previously; here is the updated version of it that accounts for the changes done through reconciliation.

% of FPL150250350450Income (first line = individual, second line = family of 4)

$16,245

$33,075$27,075

$55,125$37,905

$77,175$48,375

$99,225Out-of-pocket cap (first line = individual, second line = family of 4)

$1,983

$3,967$2,975

$5,950$3,967

$7,933$5,950

$11,900Out-of-pocket cap as percentage of income12%11% 10%12% Premium cap as percentage of income4%8.05% 9.5%N/A Worst case scenario cost as percentage of income16%19.05% 19.5%N/A

Where am I getting these numbers? The underlying Senate bill defines the out-of-pocket limits:

Sec. 1402.

Reduced cost-sharing for individuals enrolling in qualified health plans. The standard out-of-pocket maximum limits ($5,950 for individuals and $11,900 for families) would be reduced to one-third for those between 100-200 percent of poverty, one-half for those between 200-300 percent of poverty, and to two-thirds for those between 300-400 percent of poverty.

And the reconciliation package improves on the premium caps:

The new health care law would limit premium contributions for the second lowest cost silver plan to the following percentages of income once fully implemented (in 2019):

• 133% up to 150% of
  Federal Poverty Level
  — 2%
  
  
• 150% up to 200% of Federal Poverty Level — 4%
  
  
• 200% up to 250% of Federal Poverty Level — 6.3%
  
  
• 250% up to 300% of Federal Poverty Level — 8.05%
  
  
• 300% up to 400% of Federal Poverty Level — 9.5%
  
  

So,

any costs beyond those percentages for the second cheapest silver plan on a state’s exchange would be subsidized by the federal government.

The Kaiser Family Foundation subsidy calculator will give you the exact caps (and they refer to them as caps) for your income level as well as how much you can expect to pay for your insurance if you are buying in the exchanges.

Regulators' Power over Premium Increases: Now, sure, it would be nice to have the regulators have the power to block any and all rate increases by whim, and I support Sen. Feinstein's efforts on that front. But as constructed now, insurance regulators would have the power to make insurers justify their rate increases, and if they are unable to do so and insist on the increase, regulators would have the power to bar an insurer from participating in the exchanges (thus losing them a huge chunk of business and a large chunk of money in taxpayer subsidies). So in essence, they do have the power to crack down on prices as long as an insurer wishes to remain in the exchanges - which they would because that's where the biggest pool of money is.

Now, does regulator pressure or public release of rates on insurers work? Sure, if regulators are effective. After California regulators started breathing down their neck and the rate increases became public, Anthem Blue Cross agreed to postpone their rate increases while state regulators reviewed the case. In Massachusetts, insurance companies are trying to sue the state regulators to try to hike rates, and so far not having much success. Insurance companies recently backed down from their attempt to find a non-existent loophole in the current law to cover children without regard to pre-existing conditions after Secretary Sebelius cracked down.

Substantively, even if regulators had that power, we need to keep in mind that while insurance companies are a problem, they are only part of the larger health care puzzle. Health care costs aren't insurance costs alone. Several areas of our health care costs need to be taken care of, and the new law gives us a good beginning on those (such as hospital costs, wellness and prevention, expansion of information about generic drugs). For more information on these other cost measures in the new law, you can see my Beyond Insurance series.

Here are some concrete examples of cost containments and incentives in the bill. The table didn't copy correctly, though.

And as far as the student loan being in the bill - well, I say "THE NERVE", TOO. The nerve of the banks to get the profits with student loans while the federal government (taxpayers) assumed all the risk. Now, the federal government will save $65 billion by handling these loans themselves and cutting out the middleman. A win-win, in my eyes.

Once again, Pattygreen, you stand with the banks and against the taxpayers.

Edited April 14, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[Cleo's Mom 257]

When all of the provisions in the HC reform bill kick in by 2014, it may become less expensive for businesses to pay the fine for not offering HI to their employees instead of offering HC.

Here's an example of why: Eldridge Inc., a Westchester, PA waste transport Co. has 55 employees and pays more than $600,000. to cover them and their families.

While the new law includes $2000. fine for not covering workers, it exempts the first 30 employees. So Eldridge's fine would be only $50,000. for failing to cover 25 workers. Eliminating HC and paying the fine would save the company $550,000.

Tell me, how will this HC bill lower the cost of HC for people? These workers are now going to have to get their own Ins. somewhere else, or have none.

This bill was NEVER about HC. It was about taking another step closer towards the government socializing the nation! And, what does student loans have to do with HC? Why was that in the bill? The federal government is now in charge of all college loans. Talk about nerve!

Here's more to this story. Plus it doesn't say what the EMPLOYEE currently pays for his share of this healthcare insurance.

What about employees at Eldredge Inc., a West Chester, Pa., waste-transport company?

Chief financial officer Alice Egan does the math:

"We have 55 employees, and we currently pay more than $600,000" to cover them and their families. She multiplies 55 by $2,000. "The fine would cost me $110,000, so I’d save nearly a half-million dollars." Actually, she would save more.

The legislation gives employers a pass on the first 30, so her fine would be $50,000 for 25 staffers.

That would mean her company would no longer be covering employees’ families — an unattractive option to current employees and potential hires.

"We want to do the best we can to recruit the best employees we can afford," she said. Egan expects Eldredge to continue to offer coverage.

But, she said, if other companies could lower their costs by skipping coverage, "it would make it awfully enticing for someone whose profitability is suffering."

As an employee, Egan said, she would want her company to provide health benefits. "As an employer," she quickly adds, "it would be an interesting decision."

Depending on what employees are paying, it might be cheaper to purchase insurance through the exchanges. And you know the workers would expect to be paid more now that their employer isn't providing insurance.

Also, if we had a medicare buy in for all and removed the employer from the healthcare equation that would be best for everyone.