Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

Not for Congress

October 4, 2013

(The Journal’s editorial of Friday, Oct. 4, (Not for Congress) was in error when it said that a Republican budget proposal on Sept....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(56)

Auntydem

Oct-11-13 9:24 AM

Integrity - Oct 9 Q&A from Kaiser Health: Will I be required to buy pediatric dental care if I purchase insurance on the exchange?

A. Most likely, no. Children’s dental care may be included in some plans offered on the marketplaces as part of the medical coverage you are required to buy. But many insurers may offer it as a stand-alone policy, which you are not required to buy under by federal law but may be required by states. At least two—Nevada and Washington—are requiring this coverage. For children the insurance will help pay for the cost of visits to a dentist for basic or preventive services, like teeth cleaning, X-rays and fillings and medically necessary orthodontics.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Integrity

Oct-10-13 7:33 PM

Aunty: What a great deal?!? The average household (depending on where you look) is averaging under 2 children/couple. Please read again: 4 million newborns x $20/month for mandatory dental x 12 months (1st year only) = $960 million in premiums for almost 0% claim payout!! This is a great deal, for an insurance company. It would just be refreshing to hear someone admit that there may be faults in this program and try to revise, change things.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Oct-09-13 9:37 PM

Thank you, Avoice, for the clarification. Thank you, also, for your politeness.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Truthurts

Oct-09-13 8:19 AM

Why do half the people that comment seem to love big government, big government programs,high taxes,and the constitution (only when it works for there agenda)?do they benefit greatly from all the above?or is it they pay little to zero in taxes?I have only commented twice ever,and the first one was never commented on,here it is again do most of the people in the country know that the democrats have had majority and super majority the last seven years of our government and the country is going bankrupt,economy stagnant,poverty highest ever,unemployment over 7.2% for 5 years and some of you still believe we need more and bigger gov.Have to go to work now,so I can fund other people's habits,you can call me names or write snarky little comments,just try once not to ignore some of these facts before you spend the day typing your fingers to the bone.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TURBO75

Oct-08-13 8:28 PM

R2P, are you related to C3PO of Star Wars fame? You both communicate by squeaking and chirping incoherently, just thought there may be some family history there.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Oct-08-13 4:27 PM

Dental coverage for children is considered essential, but states can embed that coverage into medical plans or offer separate dental plans. Rates have been $10 - $30 per child, depending on state and plan, but the law maxes the rate to the cost of 3 - so if you have 10 kids you still only pay the single rate X 3 to cover all 10. Quite a deal!

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Oct-08-13 4:16 PM

Republican Rep Issa recently suggested what the GOP has suggested before - replace Obamacare by expanding the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program to everyone; opening the insurance Congress has to everyone. It would be awesome because then everyone could shop in a health insurance market place, where they can compare companies and plans, choosing what they can afford with their income, because they will pay premiums, deductibles, and co-pays. The government covers a portion of the premium. FEHBP insurers can’t discriminate based on age, sex, current health conditions, pre-existing conditions or hazardous work conditions. Sound familiar? GOP plan to fix Obamacare: Cross off Obama’s name and replace it with Republican. Obama’s name on the law was always the main problem anyway. Republicancare. Just sounds better.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Oct-08-13 10:04 AM

MCW,

Of course Congress and the Whitehouse have insurance - some of the best in the land. The bill that has been introduced is to scrap it and make them all go into the exchanges. And for some mysterious reason they are fighting it tooth and nail, imagine that...

If it is such a great program like is being proclaimed why don't they put their money where their mouths are and join up ?

That's just it - it's their mouths and our money. Now we've identified the root of the problem.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Integrity

Oct-08-13 9:44 AM

Here's an Obamacare stumper for you: Required Dental Care for 0-18 yrs old. For the 1st year of life, the child hardly has a full mouth of teeth, much less needs dental care. 2010 - number of births 4 million. Dental care premium on newborn about $20-$25/month. $20 x 12 months x 4 million = 1.2 billion $$'s for premiums to insurance companies that they will NEVER need to pay a claim on. By the way, I used VERY conservative numbers as there are more births to happen in '14 as well as the premium and the need for care (1 year, it's probably closer to 2 years before care is needed). Who wins??? The insurance companies again, not the middle class.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Avoice

Oct-08-13 9:21 AM

MCW - your post is half right and can only say they are but they aren't from the information being being put out. It has to do with the details regarding the reimbursement of the portion they pay. I don't know all the details but the current plan they are in pays 81% of single and 72% of family premiums. President Obama has interpreted the law which includes them but the government employees plan must reimbusement for any additional premium they may suffer. Which interpreted means the plan monies set to fund Congress benefits must reimburse, not thru the ACA law(Taxpayer). Like I said there are contradicting statements from both sides with very little clarification from anybody. This is one of the areas where there is no transparency to either side as to who can be included and who will not be under ACA. The site you noted only refutes or agrees with conversations made and does not interpret the law as was written.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Oct-07-13 10:58 PM

w w w . politifact . c o m/truth-o-meter/article/2013/sep/24/top-16-myths-about-health-care-law/

Congress is not exempt. They already have health insurance, like many of the rest of us. Those who have employer provided insurance are not required to purchase insurance on the Health Care Exchange.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Oct-07-13 4:59 PM

If you can't win on substance you can always resort to sematics.

The fact remains that both congress and the adminstration don't want to impose this health care law on themselves even after they have forced it on the rest of us.

Are they all too "good" for this law or is it this law is just that bad ?

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

deerhunt

Oct-07-13 4:04 PM

Basically what the liberals are saying that as new technology arises we should be limited to carrying muskets .So if the new weapon of the future becomes a laser , and guns become obsolete , you would be left with nothing to defend yourself with from your government if the situation ever arose. Democrats have a lot of faith in the people in Washington . At the time they passed the constitution muskets were considered to be advanced weapons , they didn't limit the common man to bows and arrows or throwing rocks. Anytime the government does not fear reprisal from its people , it is left to make decisions on it's own superior knowledge . Case in point - look to Hitler ,Roman kings , Chinese - anytime they had no fear of the people , the biggest massacres of it's own people occur. Syria , Iraq are also good examples in recent history.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

agitprop

Oct-06-13 4:26 PM

Puke: I believe the word you're looking for is "abject." And it doesn't work in this context. Your attitude is indicative of a truculent old troll. It's indeed one of the drawbacks of trying to communicate in low-brow forums like this, and under the auspices of such an esteemed journal as The Journal. Another problem is the anonymity here. I've never before had any interaction with somebody named Reason2Puke. I don't even know if that's supposed to be clever! If you can't stop insulting my intelligence, I'm going to have to pull out some of my Saul Alinsky tactics and start referring to your organs of defecation and reproduction. Now, what, pray tell, would you like me to google, re: the constitution? No, you show me, with facts, not biased uninformed opinions, the way to a reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment. "If I had a rocket-launcher ..." --Bruce Cockburn

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

svensota

Oct-06-13 4:08 PM

"Aject ignorance"?

Hmmmm....

Must be some kind of super secret Tea Party malapropism.

Way to go, Puke. We're all impressed.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Reason2Puke

Oct-06-13 2:48 PM

Thank you agitprop for demonstrating for the class your aject ignorance of the constitution.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Oct-06-13 2:09 PM

Avoice - The “ramming” of which you speak is reconciliation, which was also used to pass the 2003 and 2005 Bush tax cut bills among 20 other bills since 1980. ( 17 by GOP houses.)

March to Dec 2009 – WH healthcare summit of 120 doctors, patients, health insurers, and lawmakers from both parties. Senate Finance Committee members (both parties) hold 3 roundtable discussions. Senate Health, Ed, Labor, Pensions Committee passes Affordable Health Choices Act which includes over 160 GOP amendments. The bill passes House Committee. Senate Finance Committee rejects amendments to include a public option, and approves GOP bill (America’s Healthy Future Act). House passes the Affordable Health Care for America Act. Senate passes their version.

Jan thru March – Obama and leaders from both parties hold televised summit to explain the bill. Democrats use reconciliation (51 votes) to pass its version. House passes changes which Senate addresses. President signs the bill.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

agitprop

Oct-06-13 12:32 PM

Et tu, Integrity! Did you "change" your grundies today? I'm trying to figure out from which pulpit you might have heard this litany of funky old legends and laws on this rainy Sunday morning. "Integrity"? How about a little DIGNITY? Please try to avoid any further lapses into atavism, and please review the Doctrine of the Separation of Church & State.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

agitprop

Oct-06-13 12:15 PM

Dear Puke (I like that term of endearment): I know you're trying, but you can't educate yourself by simply spewing right-wing talking-points at everything that scares you. Let me help you. The Second Amendment calls for a well-regulated militia. Nowhere in this confusingly worded (it's not even a complete sentence and is very awkward)amendment does it even hint that an individual has the right to bear arms, or , if an individual does have that right, there is nothing that indicates that this right cannot be regulated. Unless, of course, an individual is deemed a "militia," in which case he, she, it could be regulated with impunity. And, actually, the Preamble to the Constitution is the wellspring from which all else flows and follows. The First Amendment is concise and cogent. The Second was hastily crafted and ratified (and "rammed through")in a rush to preserve the institution of slavery--Well regulated militias would keep the slaves in chains.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Integrity

Oct-06-13 11:45 AM

Segregation, child labor, marriages between men & women, illegal abortions, women voting, slavery, etc were all, at one point in our history, "laws of the land". Just because it's a "law of the land" does not make it right. "Change" has been the slogan, correct, so all of a sudden once the power changes hands, "Change" can only happen in one direction - the direction they want things to go. "Change" is a political tag line, just like "the middle class", and in the end, propaganda to push agendas.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Reason2Puke

Oct-06-13 10:20 AM

Indiscriminately

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Reason2Puke

Oct-06-13 10:05 AM

When the president started granting waivers and delaying parts of the bill indiscriminantly, he kicked the door wide open for exactly what he is getting now. If you want to somehow justify those actions to me, I'm all ears.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Reason2Puke

Oct-06-13 9:18 AM

agitprop, so when you say "law of the land" do you mean like the second amendment? I'm just trying to educate myself.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

agitprop

Oct-06-13 2:06 AM

Reason2Puke: I hope I give you reason to! Get educated on the issues if you want to continue this discussion. "Choice" is also the law of the land. You're in denial, my friend. The Republicans are scofflaws! You, too!

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Avoice

Oct-05-13 10:46 PM

Svensota wants to be a patriot like his mentor who stated "increasing the Debt Limit was unpatriotic and a lack of leadership" but now seems it is a necessary policy that must be done.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 56 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web