Fat_Bulldog wrote:We have to pay an additional premium charge plus a surcharge for spouses if they have availability of insurance coverage through their own employer.
hp did this about 10 years ago. Every year we had to affirm if our spouse had access to another employer plan. UPS is actually late to the party.
Like I've said, I can't wait to be free from relying on my employer for this. (i know aca doesn't really address this. But its a step in that direction.) And I keep wondering why employers aren't lining up to get rid of the liability. That one still puzzles me.
It's not illogical at all. We dump billions of dollars of research into a gazillion different things, in hopes of improving upon them. Cancer research is a good example. We don't have a cure yet, but we've got to keep trying.
Socnorb11 wrote:AW, I'm not even sure what you're arguing, at this point. If you're just dead set against any change that might impact you specifically, then that's one thing. The fact is that the health care debate is over, really. That flag has been planted. The discussion now is either, "What alternative is better?", or "How can we make it even better?". Both of those questions are damn spiffy questions to be asking today instead of, "Should we even do health care?", which again was the status quo prior.
From like 4 posts before this:
AW wrote:I'M SAYING the same thing I've said all along. The ACA is not the answer. Regardless of what was in place before, it's not the answer. And, personally, I'm glad people are starting to realize, as evidenced by the mere existence of this thread, that it is not universal health care. Moreover, not only is it not universal health care, it is a [expletive] system.
This isn't even addressing the tax it is on the middle class. But, whatever.
It's not illogical at all. We dump billions of dollars of research into a gazillion different things, in hopes of improving upon them. Cancer research is a good example. We don't have a cure yet, but we've got to keep trying.
I don't know all about the details, but I love this plan. Huckabee, imo, has been right all along...saying in his presidential bid something like: there's something inherently wrong with a system that won't pay $200 for a shoe that will save a foot but will spend $20K to remove the foot.
It's obviously not that simple. Though, I've been consistently in favor of spending more money on research and science.
“Since the Affordable Care Act requires employers to provide affordable coverage, we believe your spouse should be covered by their own employer -- just as UPS has a responsibility to offer coverage to you, our employee,” UPS said in the memo. “Limiting plan eligibility is one way to manage ongoing health care costs.”
So once Republicans finally repeal Obamacare, UPS will reinstate this coverage for spouses......right?
It's not illogical at all. We dump billions of dollars of research into a gazillion different things, in hopes of improving upon them. Cancer research is a good example. We don't have a cure yet, but we've got to keep trying.
I don't know all about the details, but I love this plan. Huckabee, imo, has been right all along...saying in his presidential bid something like: there's something inherently wrong with a system that won't pay $200 for a shoe that will save a foot but will spend $20K to remove the foot.
It's obviously not that simple. Though, I've been consistently in favor of spending more money on research and science.
Well, I think the ACA has the same philosophy. Theoretically, if people have health care coverage, they'll be more likely to see a doctor when they have treatable symptons, rather than waiting until the symptoms turn into something that's extremely difficult to treat and cure. Isn't this kinda in line with your shoe/foot analogy?
It's not illogical at all. We dump billions of dollars of research into a gazillion different things, in hopes of improving upon them. Cancer research is a good example. We don't have a cure yet, but we've got to keep trying.
I don't know all about the details, but I love this plan. Huckabee, imo, has been right all along...saying in his presidential bid something like: there's something inherently wrong with a system that won't pay $200 for a shoe that will save a foot but will spend $20K to remove the foot.
It's obviously not that simple. Though, I've been consistently in favor of spending more money on research and science.
Well, I think the ACA has the same philosophy. Theoretically, if people have health care coverage, they'll be more likely to see a doctor when they have treatable symptons, rather than waiting until the symptoms turn into something that's extremely difficult to treat and cure. Isn't this kinda in line with your shoe/foot analogy?
Only if they are women.
Seriously, I am going to the doctor today because I have been having some problems with my urine and stools. No other symptoms, but because my doctor is paid for, I will do this. If it wasn't paid for, I wouldn't.
Boy I can't wait til the next debt ceiling debate (starting next month!) when we find out whether our government will be forcibly shut down in an attempt to derail the ACA.
heyzeus wrote:Boy I can't wait til the next debt ceiling debate (starting next month!) when we find out whether our government will be forcibly shut down in an attempt to derail the ACA.
This is slightly off topic, but if the Govt does shut down do people still get their Social Security checks? Welfare, Medicare, etc? What about the military? I was pretty young the last time the Govt was shut down so I don't quite remember how that went.
