Oh, how easy for you to say that

Post #323,694 by crazy 3/29/10 2:44:38 PM Reply	Oh, how easy for you to say that Benefit to me? I think not. I don't work for corp america, at least not in a way that particular loophole benefits me. And at the time that stuff was happening, my company was making the big bucks, and screwing the employees with paycuts anyway. Sure, that particular loophole went into the mix of what they were making vs what they were willing to pay out to the employees, but don't pretend it is a major thing. Pay is determined by what the market will bear, NOT what the sales cost of your products is. Profit is in between, and it is up to the execs to keep it for the investors if possible.
Post #323,725 by beepster 3/30/10 12:15:43 AM Reply	Ah... so screw them cause it doesn't affect me. How "democratic" of you. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #323,747 by crazy 3/30/10 10:04:26 AM Reply	No, it WILL affect me Pro and con. In multiple areas. Any many more people. So I have specific reasons for my viewpoint, which I'm perfectly willing to show. C'mon Beep, you've known me a long time. I know the corp side HAS to maintain a balance. I am the most gung ho corp employee/contractor, fully supportive of the goal of management to make money. This is a piece of the puzzle. It will both cost and gain jobs, and will cost and save lives. I simply KNOW when the insurance company is the final word on life and death decision, they HAVE to answer to their owners, which means they have a duty to make as much money as possible. Death wins. So removing this ability from them is a litmus test for me. I see no downsides big enough to weigh against it, and there ARE a lot of downsides, including the concept of a health tax for those who choose to go without, and the federal id system that they'll reguire to run the whole thing. Many more are apparent. But none that rise to the level of making me discount it. Feel free to point more out just in case I've missed it. Can you accept that I'm not as far left as most people think you are far right?
Post #323,766 by beepster 3/30/10 12:34:42 PM Reply	This is not a conversation about the entire bill because, in general, I like the positive aspects of it as well. Simply put, I think they could have done it without the vast majority of the negative aspects of the current bill. This specific item will cost jobs and cost people coverage. These were the people that were promised over and over that their premiums would go down "up to 2500". And the end result is the same, all of those dollars (less the gov't vig) will go to big pharma. The shame is, most will think .."well they have a job so what do they care"...ignoring the fact that a huge chunk of these corp programs are covering retired workers who will lose these benefits because the company simply can't afford to do it anymore. When I was working for that big co in north jersey, there were more retirees covered (by a significant multiplier) by their insurance program than there were employees... I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #323,775 by crazy 3/30/10 3:07:54 PM Reply	So what are you looking for? Yes, it will impact the $$ of these companies. As will many others. Yup. Agreed. And from my random persective, this particluar loophole should have never existed. So, yup, I'm ok with it. How about we look at it from the perspective that this loophole allowed these companies to take my money, gave me no benefit, and was essentially an illegal taking that is finally rectified, at least for the future. Just becuase they negotiated a poor deal with their unions and or retirees does NOT mean I'm gonna lookup, and say: Oh, yeah, let's allow the repubs to kill the bill because of this particular aspect. It makes no sense.

Welcome to IWETHEY!