No Soda Bought With Food Stamps?

[Scarlett]

That's the thing. You have NO IDEA what some posters have given up, or never had in the first place. Many here didn't grow up with supportive families. Even those that did may not have learned budgeting and household skills from their families.

 

My dh's industry currently supports about $12-15/hour as a wage. If he works full-time, we do okay. That wage has decreased over the years. His ability and experience is way beyond that wage. However, he has to bid jobs that he can get. If he bids at what his experience his worth, he doesn't get the job because there are other hungry carpenters willing to do it for less. Thank God for family members that need work and are willing to pay a decent wage, even if he has to drive across the state to get there.

 

Our food stamp allotment increased by previous grocery budget by over 50%. If it were dh and I we might not have even applied. We'd have eaten ramen noodles and peanut butter and drank water. Check the age of my child, food stamps has allowed him the ability to have good nutrition at one of the most important growth periods in his life. This is my first experience with a teenage boy appetite. I'm glad I don't have to tell him there is nothing but peanut butter left in the pantry.

 

We are in a similar situation. My dh has a degree in engineering design....and cannot find a job in his field. So he works for friends of ours who own rentals doing many different things for which he is waaaay overqualified for.

 

Part of what keeps us in this situation is our blended family. There are places in this country we could move for a job for him....but he already lives over 2 hours from his children...thanks to an exwife that moved them away from him. I also have an ex-husband....with whom I have to navigate visitation for our son. So we are basically trapped in this general geographical area...OR we deal with visititation long distance---that is VERY hard on the kids AND it costs lots of money.

 

If he hasn't found a better job by the time the savings runs out I am sure we will qualify for FS. And you can bet I will do what I can to feed my children.

 

Oh, and my dh worked in construction since he was a young teen but was able/had to go back to school in his early 30s for retraining because of a serious injury. He really should not be doing hard physical labor like he is doing. Working 40 hours nearly kills him....but he does it.

 

Life is tough and I think most people really are doing the best they can.

[QueenCat]

It's not about how we interpret it. The way we are explaining it? Is how the government interprets it as explained in many faqs available to the public (as already linked).

CNN interprets is that way

 

So does Inc.

eta: Are you sure your firm isn't talking about something else? For example, small businesses will be able to participate in health care exchanges in order to offer insurance to their employees. This is a benefit to small businesses and their employees. It will make it easier for small businesses to get group insurance.

 

The exchanges are an excellent provision of the law.... this thread is making me want a drink though...

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

This is the actual law currently on the books. Notice my source is the IRS.

 

From your link:

 

 

This is the opposite of what you are saying about small businesses.

 

Now, the other bit? That's a semantic issue.

 

-If you are a small business (fewer than 50 employees), you will not pay a penalty if they receive government subsidized insurance instead of you helping them. If you do help them get insurance, then you get a tax credit.

 

-If you have 50 or more employees and you choose to let the government subsidize their insurance instead of you helping them, then you pay a share of that.

 

Exactly. 96% of all American businesses have less than 50 employees so this law will not apply to them but will give them the benefit of increased tax credits if they choose to offer health insurance as well as allow them to shop for health insurance on health exchanges which allow them to get better deals.

 

I do not think it is unreasonable for large companies of more than 50 employees to offer health insurance.

Edited June 3, 2011 by priscilla

[elegantlion]

 

Life is tough and I think most people really are doing the best they can.

:grouphug: I agree.

[Cheryl in NM]

This is money set aside *pre-tax* and they are funds matched by the government. So, I'm not sure how you can complain about that while saying food stamp recipients should not be able to choose for themselves? Every person who receives a government benefit of a different sort has said that their benefit is totally different. I honestly don't get that attitude? You are free to set aside a savings account on your own for medical expenses and use it for whatever you please. Wouldn't that be the responsible choice and capitalist way, according to your own statements?

 

don't know how I missed this earlier. We put money into an HSA (health savings account), it is NOT matched by ANYone. After we pay a deductible of $3000 traditional insurance kicks in at 90/10, after we pay $5400 of out of pocket expenses traditional insurance pays 100% of qualified expenses. It's the best of both worlds. We have traditional insurance, but aren't paying premiums AND copays AND deductibles. It was better before this year when I could purchase vitamins, herbs and OTC remedies as well as pay for alternative therapies that are not allowable now.

 

The only government benefits I receive are what they do with my tax dollars; build and maintain roads, etc.

[Meriwether]

That's the thing. You have NO IDEA what some posters have given up, or never had in the first place. Many here didn't grow up with supportive families. Even those that did may not have learned budgeting and household skills from their families.

 

 

 

:confused: No need to shout. I'll repeat again - I don't begrudge people their use of food stamps. I never said that you haven't given up whatever you could. I didn't say anything about you at all. I wish you all the best. I hope your husband's business picks up. I hope you get the help you need.

 

What I don't understand is why people get so upset at hearing stories of people who made it through lean times. I only posted my parents' story in support of Mejane's comment that it is a good thing, not a bad thing, for people to work through their hard times without assistance if possible.

[Mrs Mungo]

don't know how I missed this earlier. We put money into an HSA (health savings account), it is NOT matched by ANYone. After we pay a deductible of $3000 traditional insurance kicks in at 90/10, after we pay $5400 of out of pocket expenses traditional insurance pays 100% of qualified expenses. It's the best of both worlds. We have traditional insurance, but aren't paying premiums AND copays AND deductibles. It was better before this year when I could purchase vitamins, herbs and OTC remedies as well as pay for alternative therapies that are not allowable now.

 

Ah, I thought you were talking about a flex plan. Still, it is pre-tax dollars, yes? Therefore, you are getting a government break there. All of those things you mention *are* allowable by the federal government *if* you can get your physician to write a prescription for it.

 

The only government benefits I receive are what they do with my tax dollars; build and maintain roads, etc.

 

The etc includes quite a lot.

[Scarlett]

:confused: No need to shout. I'll repeat again - I don't begrudge people their use of food stamps. I never said that you haven't given up whatever you could. I didn't say anything about you at all. I wish you all the best. I hope your husband's business picks up. I hope you get the help you need.

 

What I don't understand is why people get so upset at hearing stories of people who made it through lean times. I only posted my parents' story in support of Mejane's comment that it is a good thing, not a bad thing, for people to work through their hard times without assistance if possible.

 

I don't think she is upset that you made it through hard times without assistance. However, it is a provision made to us in this country when we qualify and I would rather my children have decent food and heath care than make it without help. My mom (who is 66 now) grew up in a world where even ss was seen as a handout. Foodstamps? You must be joking. They would all starve before that would happen. I often wonder if that is why my mom's poor teeth failed her so young....and why every sibling has had at least one cancer and one sibling died at age 24 from cancer AND a baby at one year from something. To me, that is false pride....to put your own pride ahead of the welfare of your children when help is available.

 

Not saying you put YOUR family in peril....but I've seen that side of the coin too.

[elegantlion]

:confused: No need to shout. I'll repeat again - I don't begrudge people their use of food stamps. I never said that you haven't given up whatever you could. I didn't say anything about you at all. I wish you all the best. I hope your husband's business picks up. I hope you get the help you need.

 

What I don't understand is why people get so upset at hearing stories of people who made it through lean times. I only posted my parents' story in support of Mejane's comment that it is a good thing, not a bad thing, for people to work through their hard times without assistance if possible.

 

I'm not shouting, emphasizing. :D I thank you for sharing, this is a little touchy for me, so I apologize if you feel I'm yelling. But things are different than they were in our parents age. That was one of my points with the utilities. In the past we could get by with no gas bill for the summer, now they want 30.00 just for the privilege of sending us a bill, we had it shut off for the summer instead. In the past 5.00 used to fill my gas tank. No it's good for about 3 trips to the grocery store, and I live close. 12.00 an hour fifteen years ago was a liveable wage. Now it's a wage that make you make decisions you'd rather not make. It's not poverty, it's not broke, but you can see it from here.

[Cheryl in NM]

Exactly. 96% of all American businesses have less than 50 employees so this law will not apply to them but will give them the benefit of increased tax credits if they choose to offer health insurance as well as allow them to shop for health insurance on health exchanges which allow them to get better deals.

 

I do not think it is unreasonable for large companies of more than 50 employees to offer health insurance.

 

Finally! We agree on something! I don't think it's unreasonable either. What I disagree with is the government *forcing* those companies to provide health insurance. Besides the companies in question already *offer* health insurance, the government will begin forcing them to *pay* for that insurance.

 

You have said throughout this thread that there is no government mandate on providing health insurance and no penalty if it isn't provided. You did not specify that you were only talking about those companies with less than 50 employees. I still see this as a huge burden on companies with *only* 50 employees. It may even be a burden on larger companies. Just because they are large companies doesn't mean they are rolling in the dough, yes some, maybe even most, are, but they have operating expenses. The prices of their products will increase when they are forced to increase their operating costs. It's a vicious cycle.

[Mrs Mungo]

Finally! We agree on something! I don't think it's unreasonable either. What I disagree with is the government *forcing* those companies to provide health insurance. Besides the companies in question already *offer* health insurance, the government will begin forcing them to *pay* for that insurance.

 

You have said throughout this thread that there is no government mandate on providing health insurance and no penalty if it isn't provided. You did not specify that you were only talking about those companies with less than 50 employees. I still see this as a huge burden on companies with *only* 50 employees. It may even be a burden on larger companies. Just because they are large companies doesn't mean they are rolling in the dough, yes some, maybe even most, are, but they have operating expenses. The prices of their products will increase when they are forced to increase their operating costs. It's a vicious cycle.

 

Honestly, not being snarky, but I feel like we are living in parallel universes or something. Here is what she said before:

In 2014, as a matter of fairness, the Affordable Care Act requires large employers to pay a shared responsibility fee only if they don’t provide affordable coverage and taxpayers are supporting the cost of health insurance for their workers through premium tax credits for middle to low income families.

 

The law specifically exempts all firms that have fewer than 50 employees – 96 percent of all firms in the United States or 5.8 million out of 6 million total firms – from any employer responsibility requirements. These 5.8 million firms employ nearly 34 million workers. More than 96 percent of firms with 50 or more employees already offer health insurance to their workers. Less than 0.2 percent of all firms (about 10,000 out of 6 million) may face employer responsibility requirements. Many firms that do not currently offer coverage will be more likely to do so because of lower premiums and wider choices in the Exchange.

For more information, please visit http://www.healthreform.gov/about/answers.html.

[QueenCat]

Ah, I thought you were talking about a flex plan. Still, it is pre-tax dollars, yes? Therefore, you are getting a government break there. All of those things you mention *are* allowable by the federal government *if* you can get your physician to write a prescription for it.

I've never heard of a flex plan offering matching dollars... but there are likely many types. We used to have a fsa, that was pre-taxed, but it was all from dh's salary. Loved it...

 

The etc includes quite a lot.

 

Yep, and I am so grateful the "etc" includes our military (a big, necessary part of our nation's budget), among many other things we would sorely miss if we didn't have them.

 

 

 

:iagree:See above comments.

[elegantlion]

I don't think she is upset that you made it through hard times without assistance. However, it is a provision made to us in this country when we qualify and I would rather my children have decent food and heath care than make it without help. My mom (who is 66 now) grew up in a world where even ss was seen as a handout. Foodstamps? You must be joking. They would all starve before that would happen. I often wonder if that is why my mom's poor teeth failed her so young....and why every sibling has had at least one cancer and one sibling died at age 24 from cancer AND a baby at one year from something. To me, that is false pride....to put your own pride ahead of the welfare of your children when help is available.

 

Not saying you put YOUR family in peril....but I've seen that side of the coin too.

 

:iagree: to all of this. My family is from hard working country people. They'd grow it, kill it, and eat it. They also had little to no medical care. I can't do that where I live. Dh fishes, that's how we ate one summer, before food stamps. We have a pear tree in our new house, can't wait until they are ready this year.

[Cheryl in NM]

Ah, I thought you were talking about a flex plan. Still, it is pre-tax dollars, yes? Therefore, you are getting a government break there. All of those things you mention *are* allowable by the federal government *if* you can get your physician to write a prescription for it.

 

 

 

The etc includes quite a lot.

 

I know the etc includes quite alot, including service members like your husband risking their lives for me to sit on this message board and debate the merits (or not) of this country. But saying that I use the same pre-tax dollars as everyone else who is utilizing a tax sheltered health insurance plan is the same as receiving food stamps or receiving a government subsidy is really comparing apples to oranges.

 

ETA: Those rules about the OTC prescriptions only apply to FSA and HRA, HSAs are not listed in that part of the tax code.

[GailV]

However it is something akin to someone asking you if they can have X amount of money for help and then you get to tell them how they can spend it. It doesn't work that way. I have asked my parents if I could borrow (have :)) some money for this or that and they never told me how to spend it. I have given friends $5 or $10 before and not said OK but you can't buy this item with it.

 

It is easy when we are posting here in the forums to say things. We are somewhat removed from situations. But when you have to do something in person it changes the whole perspective.

 

Actually, I see people put these parameters on money all the time. For example, BIL#1 will not give BIL#2 a gift card to any place that sells booze (including grocery stores or restaurants) because he assumes that what BIL#2 will spend it on;and he certainly ever gives him cash, even when BIL#2 teeters close to homelessness.

 

Which isn't to say I disagree with the rest of your point. You're right, many people can't look another in the eye and deny them things. I hang out with a very different crowd, though. BIL#1 isn't the lone ranger in his actions in my world, nor is BIL#2 the sole person with restrictions placed on him.

 

Also, I'm not saying I think *you* should spend your money any particular way. I don't even know you, so that would be silly. But humanity is even more diverse than you're giving us credit for.

[Mrs Mungo]

 

ETA: Those rules about the OTC prescriptions only apply to FSA and HRA, HSAs are not listed in that part of the tax code.

 

Everything I'm reading says they can be paid for if they are prescribed by a doctor.

http://www.midlandnb.com/2706/mirror/p_hsa.htm

http://www.individualhealth.com/HSA/default.htm

[Cheryl in NM]

Everything I'm reading says they can be paid for if they are prescribed by a doctor.

http://www.midlandnb.com/2706/mirror/p_hsa.htm

http://www.individualhealth.com/HSA/default.htm

 

1. those aren't the IRS

2. I was referring to the section of IRS code that someone posted earlier in this thread. When I researched it they had posted on this thread almost word for word from the IRS website regarding getting a prescription for OTC meds, etc.

 

I'd rather buy the OTC out of pocket, then buy it out of my HSA and pay a 20% penalty. I can't afford to spend $100 to see my primary care dr. to get a script for an OTC med. I have other costs that use up my HSA money and then some every month.

[Mrs Mungo]

1. those aren't the IRS

2. I was referring to the section of IRS code that someone posted earlier in this thread. When I researched it they had posted on this thread almost word for word from the IRS website regarding getting a prescription for OTC meds, etc.

 

I'd rather buy the OTC out of pocket, then buy it out of my HSA and pay a 20% penalty. I can't afford to spend $100 to see my primary care dr. to get a script for an OTC med. I have other costs that use up my HSA money and then some every month.

 

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p969/ar01.html#en_US_2010_publink1000255712

Qualified Medical Expenses. For HSA, MSA, FSA, and HRA purposes, a medicine or drug will be a qualified medical expense only if the medicine or drug:

 

1. Requires a prescription,

2. Is available without a prescription (an over-the-counter medicine or drug) and you get a prescription for it, or

3. Is insulin.

 

 

 

eta: What bit did you research? Do you have a link for that? Because I can't find anything that says what you claim.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[Mejane]

However it is something akin to someone asking you if they can have X amount of money for help and then you get to tell them how they can spend it.

 

What's wrong with that? My money, my terms. Borrow it or not. Banks make such distinctions all the time, and that is for money that will be repaid. Why shouldn't the government put restrictions on given money?

 

This whole discussion has become silly, imo, so I am done now.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Finally! We agree on something! I don't think it's unreasonable either. What I disagree with is the government *forcing* those companies to provide health insurance. Besides the companies in question already *offer* health insurance, the government will begin forcing them to *pay* for that insurance.

 

You have said throughout this thread that there is no government mandate on providing health insurance and no penalty if it isn't provided. You did not specify that you were only talking about those companies with less than 50 employees. I still see this as a huge burden on companies with *only* 50 employees. It may even be a burden on larger companies. Just because they are large companies doesn't mean they are rolling in the dough, yes some, maybe even most, are, but they have operating expenses. The prices of their products will increase when they are forced to increase their operating costs. It's a vicious cycle.

I did specify that multiple times as well as the links I provided. These large companies are only 4% of the companies in America.

[Cheryl in NM]

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p969/ar01.html#en_US_2010_publink1000255712

 

 

Great, thank you. That is not where I was looking earlier, it's also not quite the information I was looking at, but was dated Jan. 2011.

 

I'd love to have your research skills! You are always so quick.

[Cheryl in NM]

I did specify that multiple times as well as the links I provided. These large companies are only 4% of the companies in America.

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

Do you equate a company with 50 employees to a company with thousands of employees? Do have any idea how big the burden will be for a company with 50 employees? This law will likely put many small businesses under.

[cindergretta]

I would like to point out that the "penalty" only applies if a company fails to provide affordable coverage AND at least one FT employee uses gov't health care. THEN the gov't will leverage an excise tax to recoup that "loss." It is a way to ensure that large corporations don't improve their own bottom line at the gov't's expense, ie. save money by not offering (or paying partially for) coverage and letting employees get on medicaid.

 

IMHO, that isn't a penalty. It is an incentive. The company has the choice to provide and partially pay for coverage OR give money to the gov't to provide that coverage.

 

Think about what a win win it would be for corporations to pay employees minimum wage and not have to provide any benefits. Then the employees (by way of miimum wage) qualify for WIC, medicaid, FS, child care subsidies, section 8... And the company makes money hand over fist, while enjoying numerous tax breaks all over the place for having their company here instead of India.

 

Corporate welfare much?

[Cheryl in NM]

I would like to point out that the "penalty" only applies if a company fails to provide affordable coverage AND at least one FT employee uses gov't health care. THEN the gov't will leverage an excise tax to recoup that "loss." It is a way to ensure that large corporations don't improve their own bottom line at the gov't's expense, ie. save money by not offering (or paying partially for) coverage and letting employees get on medicaid.

 

IMHO, that isn't a penalty. It is an incentive. The company has the choice to provide and partially pay for coverage OR give money to the gov't to provide that coverage.

 

Think about what a win win it would be for corporations to pay employees minimum wage and not have to provide any benefits. Then the employees (by way of miimum wage) qualify for WIC, medicaid, FS, child care subsidies, section 8... And the company makes money hand over fist, while enjoying numerous tax breaks all over the place for having their company here instead of India.

 

Corporate welfare much?

 

The penalty applies if the company refuses to provide AND pay for 60% of the employee's premiums AND that employee goes on subsidy. There's nothing about providing an affordable option.

 

Why should the government be allowed to "require" a business in a free enterprise system to provide anything above pay for work? That's my big problem here. It's going to kill the smaller businesses in America, yes, I'm talking about those with 50 employees.

 

ETA: I don't have a problem with people being insured, I just have a problem with the government forcing the businesses to pay for that insurance. I don't think we are arguing the same thing.

[5kidsforME]

I'm sorry what was the original argument again?? Holy cow this thread has gone off the rails! :lol:

[cindergretta]

I read 50%. And I stand by my post. We will have to agree to disagree. Robber barons of the past have shown us what wealth and power can do to the "little guy." And having a company improve its own bottom line by making its employees eligible for federal social programs falls under "robber baron." Only now it is robbing the gov't instead of the "little guy." The "little guy" has his needs met with tax dollars while a corporation fattens that all important bottom line while enjoying generous tax breaks. Period.

 

That isn't free enterprise. That is taking advantage of "the system."

 

And how is it going to "kill" small business?? We are talking about .2% of the companies currently in business.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

Do you equate a company with 50 employees to a company with thousands of employees? Do have any idea how big the burden will be for a company with 50 employees? This law will likely put many small businesses under.

 

I don't see that since 95% of the large companies already offer insurance:)

 

I want to take healthcare reform one step further and have universal single payer healthcare. I want medicare for all and I truly believe that businesses and millions of Americans will be relieved and will prosper under a medicare for all system.

[Cheryl in NM]

I read 50%. And I stand by my post. We will have to agree to disagree. Robber barons of the past have shown us what wealth and power can do to the "little guy." And having a company improve its own bottom line by making its employees eligible for federal social programs falls under "robber baron." Only now it is robbing the gov't instead of the "little guy." The "little guy" has his needs met with tax dollars while a corporation fattens that all important bottom line while enjoying generous tax breaks. Period.

 

That isn't free enterprise. That is taking advantage of "the system."

 

And how is it going to "kill" small business?? We are talking about .2% of the companies currently in business.

 

Um, no, you are talking about 4% of American businesses with 50 or more employees. So a business with 50 employees has to purchase health insurance FOR their employees or pay an excise tax to the government, just the same as a business with 50,000 employees.

 

It will kill those 50 employee businesses because they are already operating on a thin line and to force them to not only offer but to PAY for health insurance for their employees is a bigger burden than most can afford.

 

Besides, I am adamantly opposed to the government forcing a business to purchase something.

[Cheryl in NM]

I don't see that since 95% of the large companies already offer insurance:)

 

I want to take healthcare reform one step further and have universal single payer healthcare. I want medicare for all and I truly believe that businesses and millions of Americans will be relieved and will prosper under a medicare for all system.

 

Right, they OFFER. The new 2014 law requires them to PAY 60% of the employees premium. That's my problem with it.

[Barry Goldwater]

Um, no, you are talking about 4% of American businesses with 50 or more employees. So a business with 50 employees has to purchase health insurance FOR their employees or pay an excise tax to the government, just the same as a business with 50,000 employees.

 

It will kill those 50 employee businesses because they are already operating on a thin line and to force them to not only offer but to PAY for health insurance for their employees is a bigger burden than most can afford.

 

Besides, I am adamantly opposed to the government forcing a business to purchase something.

 

:iagree: I for one am looking forward to the reaction of the advocates of this sort of social policy being forced to actually live under it. It will be very entertaining.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

:iagree: I for one am looking forward to the reaction of the advocates of this sort of social policy being forced to actually live under it. It will be very entertaining.

 

My dear parents are quite happy to live under the social policies of medicare and social security. They have been a godsend to them.

[Mrs Mungo]

Um, no, you are talking about 4% of American businesses with 50 or more employees. So a business with 50 employees has to purchase health insurance FOR their employees or pay an excise tax to the government, just the same as a business with 50,000 employees.

 

It will kill those 50 employee businesses because they are already operating on a thin line and to force them to not only offer but to PAY for health insurance for their employees is a bigger burden than most can afford.

 

Besides, I am adamantly opposed to the government forcing a business to purchase something.

 

quoting from earlier:

The law specifically exempts all firms that have fewer than 50 employees – 96 percent of all firms in the United States or 5.8 million out of 6 million total firms – from any employer responsibility requirements. These 5.8 million firms employ nearly 34 million workers. More than 96 percent of firms with 50 or more employees already offer health insurance to their workers. Less than 0.2 percent of all firms (about 10,000 out of 6 million) may face employer responsibility requirements. Many firms that do not currently offer coverage will be more likely to do so because of lower premiums and wider choices in the Exchange.

[cindergretta]

My dear parents are quite happy to live under the social policies of medicare and social security. They have been a godsend to them.

 

:iagree: Personally, I will find it very entertaining when all those so vehemently opposed to SS, medicare, etc., refuse their "payouts" when they reach the given age to receive them. Or will they? :glare:

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Um, no, you are talking about 4% of American businesses with 50 or more employees. So a business with 50 employees has to purchase health insurance FOR their employees or pay an excise tax to the government, just the same as a business with 50,000 employees.

 

It will kill those 50 employee businesses because they are already operating on a thin line and to force them to not only offer but to PAY for health insurance for their employees is a bigger burden than most can afford.

 

Besides, I am adamantly opposed to the government forcing a business to purchase something.

 

Actually OSHA mandates that companies buy things to protect workers and it has been a godsend. For example, health care facilities are required to use needleless systems and other needle stick prevention devices to protect nurses and other health care workers. I have been stuck by needles multiple times prior to those devices becoming mandated despite my use of extreme caution. Other industries are required to provide safety gear as well. OSHA is a government entity and it is a good thing:)

[Cheryl in NM]

quoting from earlier:

 

again with the changing.... I was talking about the 50+ employee business and she changed to talking about the -50 employee businesses. I was clear in my posts who I was talking about.

[twoforjoy]

My dear parents are quite happy to live under the social policies of medicare and social security. They have been a godsend to them.

 

Well, wait, didn't you know that Medicare was going to be the death knell for freedom? Reagan said so!

 

And yet, I don't know ANY older people who are willing to give up Medicare, or claiming they would feel so much freer if it weren't there.

[Cheryl in NM]

My dear parents are quite happy to live under the social policies of medicare and social security. They have been a godsend to them.

 

No one in this thread has said anything about medicare and social security except you! We have been talking about using food stamps to pay for soda and junk food and the current health care reform bill.

 

I don't know why you are taking such offense. :confused:

[Cheryl in NM]

:iagree: Personally, I will find it very entertaining when all those so vehemently opposed to SS, medicare, etc., refuse their "payouts" when they reach the given age to receive them. Or will they? :glare:

 

I'm pretty confident that there won't be a payout when I reach retirement age. But again with the :confused:. I haven't seen anyone in this thread say anything against med & ss.

[cindergretta]

again with the changing.... I was talking about the 50+ employee business and she changed to talking about the -50 employee businesses. I was clear in my posts who I was talking about.

 

If you are talking about me, I was talking about the 50+ employee companies, you know, the ones possibly affected and not specifically exempted. :confused:

[twoforjoy]

I'm pretty confident that there won't be a payout when I reach retirement age. But again with the :confused:. I haven't seen anyone in this thread say anything against med & ss.

 

Social security should remain solvent for quite some time, with only minor adjustments needed. Medicare is a bigger problem, mainly because it's nearly impossible to control costs in our current system, unlike under single-payer systems where it's much easier to negotiate lower costs. Single-payer health care is probably the only way to save Medicare (and to keep costs down so that any American can afford health care in the future), and I think once that becomes glaringly obvious, we will see change, because old people vote and they are going to do anything to keep their Medicare benefits.

[Cheryl in NM]

Actually OSHA mandates that companies buy things to protect workers and it has been a godsend. For example, health care facilities are required to use needleless systems and other needle stick prevention devices to protect nurses and other health care workers. I have been stuck by needles multiple times prior to those devices becoming mandated despite my use of extreme caution. Other industries are required to provide safety gear as well. OSHA is a government entity and it is a good thing:)

 

I agree with job safety. Forcing a business to pay health insurance under threat of penalty is not the same thing and it is taking responsibility off of the employee. My husband, the current wage earner in our family, is responsible for financially providing for our care, NOT the government.

[cindergretta]

I'm pretty confident that there won't be a payout when I reach retirement age. But again with the :confused:. I haven't seen anyone in this thread say anything against med & ss.

 

The comment was directed at a post regarding "social policy." Medicare and SS are social policies that have been touted as being the catalyst for the downfall of the country as we know it, the end of all we hold near and dear.

[Cheryl in NM]

If you are talking about me, I was talking about the 50+ employee companies, you know, the ones possibly affected and not specifically exempted. :confused:

 

okay, well that's 4% the .2% are the companies possibly affected by penalties with LESS THAN 50 employees.

 

This is a confusing thread with lots of numbers. We need to be clear what we are debating in each post.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

No one in this thread has said anything about medicare and social security except you! We have been talking about using food stamps to pay for soda and junk food and the current health care reform bill.

 

I don't know why you are taking such offense. :confused:

 

I have not taken any offense. I have responded to inaccuracies on the health care reform act since I think it is very important to get accurate info out there since many national figures have misrepresented the facts about this healthcare law and continue to do so:( Also, as an RN and as someone who has seen close family members go without healthcare insurance and defer their own medical needs, I am grateful healthcare reform passed.

 

I was responding to another poster who referred to social policies and people living under them:)

[cindergretta]

okay, well that's 4% the .2% are the companies possibly affected by penalties with LESS THAN 50 employees.

 

This is a confusing thread with lots of numbers. We need to be clear what we are debating in each post.

 

Ok, we are reading the exact same thing 2 different ways, clearly. I am reading that .2% to be affected companies, which have to have 50+ employees as compaines with less than 50 employees are exempt. :confused:

[Cheryl in NM]

I have not taken any offense. I have responded to inaccuracies on the health care reform act since I think it is very important to get accurate info out there since many national figures have misrepresented the facts about this healthcare law and continue to do so:( Also, as an RN and as someone who has seen close family members go without healthcare insurance and defer their own medical needs, I am grateful healthcare reform passed.

 

I was responding to another poster who referred to social policies and people living under them:)

 

I agree with getting accurate info out there and it comes from the IRS, not outdated websites.

 

We are free to respond to any post on this forum.:)

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I agree with getting accurate info out there and it comes from the IRS, not outdated websites.

 

We are free to respond to any post on this forum.:)

 

Again, this web site is the official web site for healthcare info and it is not outdated:

 

http://www.healthcare.gov/index.html

Check it out:001_smile: It has lots of useful info:)

[Cheryl in NM]

Ok, we are reading the exact same thing 2 different ways, clearly. I am reading that .2% to be affected companies, which have to have 50+ employees as compaines with less than 50 employees are exempt. :confused:

 

I'm not quite sure where we got off track anymore! :confused: I do know that for the small business with 50 employees being forced to pay their employees health coverage will put them out of business. They are too small to be forced to comply in the same way fortune 500 companies must comply. I am also opposed to the government forcing it's citizens to purchase health insurance, even if that government will subsidize the cost if you can't afford it and fall within their income levels to subsidize. I see this part of the health care reform act as blatantly stepping all over the rights of individual taxpayers and businesses.

 

The law specifically exempts all firms that have fewer than 50 employees – 96 percent of all firms in the United States or 5.8 million out of 6 million total firms – from any employer responsibility requirements. These 5.8 million firms employ nearly 34 million workers. More than 96 percent of firms with 50 or more employees already offer health insurance to their workers. Less than 0.2 percent of all firms (about 10,000 out of 6 million) may face employer responsibility requirements. Many firms that do not currently offer coverage will be more likely to do so because of lower premiums and wider choices in the Exchange.

Edited June 3, 2011 by Cheryl in NM

[Cheryl in NM]

Again, this web site is the official web site for healthcare info and it is not outdated:

 

http://www.healthcare.gov/index.html

Check it out:001_smile: It has lots of useful info:)

 

Show me the link from the IRS to this website. The IRS regulates the compliance of this act.

 

ETA: I have checked it out but it conflicts with information given on the IRS website.

[elizabeth]

Well plenty of Catholics disagree, and academia is HARDLY the institution to whine about the issues. They are practically putting young people into positions of indentured servants to make sure they keep their jobs, so I don't want to hear their philosophical/theological, irrational, certainly not Catholic, and not true to the idea of subsidiarity ramblings.

 

It is not moral to keep people perpetually in a cycle of poverty by supporting programs that never have to account for actual results. It is not moral to be so completely irresponsible with public funds as to drive an entire nation into bankruptcy with borrowed funds from future generations.

 

And if that organization is so concerned with Catholic teaching, then where is their outrage against law makers so fond of abortion? MIA. Give me a break. I have already explained (ignored), that Christ did not mandate government taxation but individual charity. That picture makes a pretty good Monty Python style joke.

 

This convinces no one who is not part of that choir already, and it definitely is not the position of the Vatican. Repeating it and adding :iagree: signs does not make it correct.

 

http://www.usccb.org/cchd/povertyusa/ Ahem. I think that if memory serves these bishops are in fact speaking from authority given them by the Vatican.