mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies
Czar of Asian female immigration.
Czar of Asian female immigration.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies
- Thread starter moe24
- Start date
- Status
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies
Not a straw man. Not even an argument. All you righties keep pointing to TORT reform as the solution to all our problems yet I've never seen any proof that it solves anything. And ultimately someone ends up paying.
Not a straw man. Not even an argument. All you righties keep pointing to TORT reform as the solution to all our problems yet I've never seen any proof that it solves anything. And ultimately someone ends up paying.
dropthatpuck
In Vino Veritas
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies
You're lost - still.
Someone goes into the hospital for elective surgery and doesn't like the looks of the scar when it's all over. They go for the money grab - the hospital, surgeon, PCP, radiologists, anaesthesiologists, et al, get sued. Cumulatively they all spend hundreds of thousands in defense costs and court costs, then pay out millions in a settlement...that'd be their GL & MalPrac. insurance that settles.
What part of "frivolous" don't you get?
Why can't you seem to grasp how this trickles down to the consumer via increased costs just like any other service or product?
You should climb out of your shell and spend some time with the owners of your company instead of ****ting on them each and every day for not giving you yours and for making more money than you. You may end up learning just enough about business economics so you could wrap your head around this insurance issue.
You're lost - still.
Someone goes into the hospital for elective surgery and doesn't like the looks of the scar when it's all over. They go for the money grab - the hospital, surgeon, PCP, radiologists, anaesthesiologists, et al, get sued. Cumulatively they all spend hundreds of thousands in defense costs and court costs, then pay out millions in a settlement...that'd be their GL & MalPrac. insurance that settles.
What part of "frivolous" don't you get?
Why can't you seem to grasp how this trickles down to the consumer via increased costs just like any other service or product?
You should climb out of your shell and spend some time with the owners of your company instead of ****ting on them each and every day for not giving you yours and for making more money than you. You may end up learning just enough about business economics so you could wrap your head around this insurance issue.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies
I'm not asking for anything her dtp. You can have your tort reform, I don't care. Obama can have his Obamacare, I don't care.
As far as businesses are concerned, I'm lucky to be employed right now and I've told my employer as much. I'm lucky to have a job. I haven't asked them for anything, and I've taken my pay cut this year.
So, you can just lock yourself in a closet and stop crying about all those people out there trying to screw you by filing their frivolous lawsuits. Me, I don't care.
Who said anything about me getting mine? I'm not crying about anything. All I did was cite a scenario. A scenario that's more common then the one you just cited. Who in their right mind on that jury would award anything to the moron that brought that suit on? Not me, I'll tell you that much.
I'm not asking for anything her dtp. You can have your tort reform, I don't care. Obama can have his Obamacare, I don't care.
As far as businesses are concerned, I'm lucky to be employed right now and I've told my employer as much. I'm lucky to have a job. I haven't asked them for anything, and I've taken my pay cut this year.
So, you can just lock yourself in a closet and stop crying about all those people out there trying to screw you by filing their frivolous lawsuits. Me, I don't care.
dropthatpuck
In Vino Veritas
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies
...and your not caring is exactly the problem. You're no different than the do-nothings on the Hill.
Your example of the lost leg or foot is the very, very, very rare instance. The minor stuff that happens each and every day are the ones that add to our healthcare costs.
It doesn't get to a jury. The costs to the insurers are more to litigate in a jury trial than to settle. In either case, the insurance companies pay.
That's the part you don't get and that's why I told you to try talking to the owners of your company about it. Even in your business, insurance increases because of BS suits and claims.
You debating me on this one is like me debating you on computer code.
...and your not caring is exactly the problem. You're no different than the do-nothings on the Hill.
Your example of the lost leg or foot is the very, very, very rare instance. The minor stuff that happens each and every day are the ones that add to our healthcare costs.
It doesn't get to a jury. The costs to the insurers are more to litigate in a jury trial than to settle. In either case, the insurance companies pay.
That's the part you don't get and that's why I told you to try talking to the owners of your company about it. Even in your business, insurance increases because of BS suits and claims.
You debating me on this one is like me debating you on computer code.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies
Then change the law. I'm not arguing it shouldn't be changed. I've done everything I can do. I didn't vote for Obama, I didn't want him in there in the first place. McCain wouldn't have changed anything either.
Fact is, and you know this as well as I do. The big boys like the status quo pretty much on everything. They like it just like it is. I guarantee if somebody BIG wanted the law changed it's get changed.
Then change the law. I'm not arguing it shouldn't be changed. I've done everything I can do. I didn't vote for Obama, I didn't want him in there in the first place. McCain wouldn't have changed anything either.
Fact is, and you know this as well as I do. The big boys like the status quo pretty much on everything. They like it just like it is. I guarantee if somebody BIG wanted the law changed it's get changed.
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies
Theirs money to be made and in the end thats all that matters to Obama(insert Bush here if you want) and the rest of his cronies
Theirs money to be made and in the end thats all that matters to Obama(insert Bush here if you want) and the rest of his cronies
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies
Aye - and there's the rub. The problem is that, by definition, the people who are currently "big" became that way under the current rules. Of course THEY like the rules - they're rules that either favored them outright, or at the very least, allowed them to succeed on their merits. Why would anybody who's currently successful ever want ANYTHING to change?
leswp1
New member
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies
The card thing is interesting but I would imagine the same applies for every type of card issued by the gov't. The ER can not turn anyone down for treatment if they are in extremis. They must at least evaluate the person before deciding if they are safe to not treat.
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies
An analysis of Obamacare from David Galland of Casey Research:
(Part 1)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Free Isn't Free
Dear Reader,
Let’s get right down to business, shall we?
First up, the president’s health care initiative. Now that we have some details – with an emphasis on the word “some” – we can attempt to gauge its viability.
Mind you, I approach this task with a kind-hearted attitude of wanting to find something to like. Something that might actually mitigate the unsupportable rise in health care costs.
Here’s the blow by blow on the president’s plan, slothfully relying on the Financial Times’s recap of his key points as the starting point for our analysis…
First, all Americans would be required to get healthcare insurance or pay a financial penalty, depending on their income level.
Analysis: If you can afford health insurance, you probably already have it. So, this plank in his platform shouldn’t apply to you. You might, however, be among a microscopic slice of the population that have more than enough funds to buy insurance, but have calculated they are better off self-insuring. In the overall scheme of things, that group is a non-factor in the debate. Thus, this plank in Obama’s platform appears primarily addressed to the segment of the population that can’t afford insurance. Yet, as the “financial penalty” will be based on an income test, it is safe to assume that there will be no penalties assessed on the great majority of people who currently don’t have insurance.
So, a big nothing, right? Not exactly. As you’ll see in a moment, what this provision actually does is set the equivalent of a glue trap for the middle class. Back to the Financial Times…
Second, insurers participating in the new national healthcare exchange would be forbidden from excluding or discriminating against consumers on the basis of their health, age, race or geography.
Analysis: In his excellent essay on the topic in the current edition of The Casey Report, Doug Casey points out how ludicrous it is to force insurance companies to insure everyone, regardless of their preexisting medical condition. And I quote:
If insurers are prevented from denying coverage for preexisting conditions, then many people won’t seek coverage until they’re sure they have a problem. It subverts the entire basis of insurance, in effect trying to force a company to pay for a house fire after the dwelling has already burned down. Doug Casey, The Casey Report, September 2009 edition.
As the Obama plan lays it out, insurance companies will participate in a national health insurance “exchange,” but only if they agree to the terms just mentioned – of insuring anyone that walks through their door, regardless of condition.
Think this through.
Let’s assume you owned an insurance company and decided not to participate in this exchange? You could continue with business as usual, denying coverage or demanding high premiums for the unhealthy. By closely managing your affairs, you could provide coverage to the vast majority of possible clients and still turn a modest profit.
Alternatively, you could join the exchange and be forced to take on everyone, regardless of condition. Realistically, the only way you could manage to do this and stay in business is by…
(a) Greatly increasing premiums on all of your clients, but that would quickly make your firm distinctly uncompetitive with the firms that didn’t join the exchange, or…
(b) Charging the unhealthy or aged such a high premium that they wouldn’t be able to afford to buy your insurance, negating the whole “universal” health care thing right at the front door. Or…
(c) Having the government agree to subsidize the cost of individuals you deem as being undesirable insurance risks.
The knot begins to get tangled, but trying to keep things simple, let’s start by dealing with those private insurance companies that don’t want to participate in the “exchange” (whatever that means).
The competitive advantage these firms would have, absent further government meddling, would assure that the entire program was stillborn. Simply, why would anyone buy their insurance from a company that charged much higher premiums in order to offset the massive additional expense of having to take on individuals with preexisting conditions? They wouldn’t. At least not unless they were one of those people with preexisting conditions. In which case the portfolio of those companies would only get worse and worse until the premiums required would be astronomical and unaffordable all the way around. So, a non-starter.
That straightforward reality means that the government will have to dig back into its tool kit and add one or more of the following further requirements into its program:
(a) Force all insurance companies to participate in the exchange, or pay a special tax of such a magnitude that they’ll have to raise their own premiums to the levels charged by the exchange participants, or,
(b) The government (read, the declining base of taxpayers) will have to subsidize coverage for the poor insurance risks, thereby allowing the insurance companies in the exchange to remain competitive.
Of course, the government may launch its own insurance company, in which case U.S. taxpayers will effectively be going into a head-to-head competition with their existing insurance companies.
Regardless, under all conceivable scenarios, the cost of providing health care to all Americans will have to be added to the existing burden of government-related expense now borne by taxpayers. Either in the form of higher premiums or higher deficits and the taxes that will have to be raised to try and cap those deficits.
But wait, there’s more. Again, back to the Financial Times, and I quote…
Third, those without insurance – a number that rose by almost 1m to a shade above 46m between 2007 and 2008 – would be heavily subsidized to get it, the level of subsidy varying with the income of the individual. Small businesses would also receive tax credits to help them pay for their employees.
Okay, now we jump back to the first point. As we have already learned, those who can’t afford to buy insurance won’t be made to pay a penalty, because of the income test. Now we learn that they will actually be awarded health care coverage by the state. Which can only happen by redirecting assets that would otherwise be deployed by the productive members of society in support of the broad economy, through personal consumption, investment, or entrepreneurial activities.
And small businesses would receive tax credits to help them pay for their employees. Which, when you look through the thin veil, really just means that taxpayers will again be subsidizing the health care costs of the employees of the small businesses.
To this point in the plan, the burden on the taxpayer has only grown. And given the sheer magnitude of health care costs, it has grown a lot. Yet Mr. Obama insists that his program won’t cost the taxpayer a dime. So, how will all that be paid for? Back to the FT…
And fourth, Mr Obama would pay for these measures by making cuts in payments to medical providers in the Medicare program for retirees as well as imposing a fee on the most expensive – or “Cadillac” – plans offered by insurers.
However, these so-called “pay-fors” only cover roughly half of the $900bn in costs Mr Obama laid out. The White House has yet to provide details of how it would fund the remainder of the subsidies…
An analysis of Obamacare from David Galland of Casey Research:
(Part 1)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Free Isn't Free
Dear Reader,
Let’s get right down to business, shall we?
First up, the president’s health care initiative. Now that we have some details – with an emphasis on the word “some” – we can attempt to gauge its viability.
Mind you, I approach this task with a kind-hearted attitude of wanting to find something to like. Something that might actually mitigate the unsupportable rise in health care costs.
Here’s the blow by blow on the president’s plan, slothfully relying on the Financial Times’s recap of his key points as the starting point for our analysis…
First, all Americans would be required to get healthcare insurance or pay a financial penalty, depending on their income level.
Analysis: If you can afford health insurance, you probably already have it. So, this plank in his platform shouldn’t apply to you. You might, however, be among a microscopic slice of the population that have more than enough funds to buy insurance, but have calculated they are better off self-insuring. In the overall scheme of things, that group is a non-factor in the debate. Thus, this plank in Obama’s platform appears primarily addressed to the segment of the population that can’t afford insurance. Yet, as the “financial penalty” will be based on an income test, it is safe to assume that there will be no penalties assessed on the great majority of people who currently don’t have insurance.
So, a big nothing, right? Not exactly. As you’ll see in a moment, what this provision actually does is set the equivalent of a glue trap for the middle class. Back to the Financial Times…
Second, insurers participating in the new national healthcare exchange would be forbidden from excluding or discriminating against consumers on the basis of their health, age, race or geography.
Analysis: In his excellent essay on the topic in the current edition of The Casey Report, Doug Casey points out how ludicrous it is to force insurance companies to insure everyone, regardless of their preexisting medical condition. And I quote:
If insurers are prevented from denying coverage for preexisting conditions, then many people won’t seek coverage until they’re sure they have a problem. It subverts the entire basis of insurance, in effect trying to force a company to pay for a house fire after the dwelling has already burned down. Doug Casey, The Casey Report, September 2009 edition.
As the Obama plan lays it out, insurance companies will participate in a national health insurance “exchange,” but only if they agree to the terms just mentioned – of insuring anyone that walks through their door, regardless of condition.
Think this through.
Let’s assume you owned an insurance company and decided not to participate in this exchange? You could continue with business as usual, denying coverage or demanding high premiums for the unhealthy. By closely managing your affairs, you could provide coverage to the vast majority of possible clients and still turn a modest profit.
Alternatively, you could join the exchange and be forced to take on everyone, regardless of condition. Realistically, the only way you could manage to do this and stay in business is by…
(a) Greatly increasing premiums on all of your clients, but that would quickly make your firm distinctly uncompetitive with the firms that didn’t join the exchange, or…
(b) Charging the unhealthy or aged such a high premium that they wouldn’t be able to afford to buy your insurance, negating the whole “universal” health care thing right at the front door. Or…
(c) Having the government agree to subsidize the cost of individuals you deem as being undesirable insurance risks.
The knot begins to get tangled, but trying to keep things simple, let’s start by dealing with those private insurance companies that don’t want to participate in the “exchange” (whatever that means).
The competitive advantage these firms would have, absent further government meddling, would assure that the entire program was stillborn. Simply, why would anyone buy their insurance from a company that charged much higher premiums in order to offset the massive additional expense of having to take on individuals with preexisting conditions? They wouldn’t. At least not unless they were one of those people with preexisting conditions. In which case the portfolio of those companies would only get worse and worse until the premiums required would be astronomical and unaffordable all the way around. So, a non-starter.
That straightforward reality means that the government will have to dig back into its tool kit and add one or more of the following further requirements into its program:
(a) Force all insurance companies to participate in the exchange, or pay a special tax of such a magnitude that they’ll have to raise their own premiums to the levels charged by the exchange participants, or,
(b) The government (read, the declining base of taxpayers) will have to subsidize coverage for the poor insurance risks, thereby allowing the insurance companies in the exchange to remain competitive.
Of course, the government may launch its own insurance company, in which case U.S. taxpayers will effectively be going into a head-to-head competition with their existing insurance companies.
Regardless, under all conceivable scenarios, the cost of providing health care to all Americans will have to be added to the existing burden of government-related expense now borne by taxpayers. Either in the form of higher premiums or higher deficits and the taxes that will have to be raised to try and cap those deficits.
But wait, there’s more. Again, back to the Financial Times, and I quote…
Third, those without insurance – a number that rose by almost 1m to a shade above 46m between 2007 and 2008 – would be heavily subsidized to get it, the level of subsidy varying with the income of the individual. Small businesses would also receive tax credits to help them pay for their employees.
Okay, now we jump back to the first point. As we have already learned, those who can’t afford to buy insurance won’t be made to pay a penalty, because of the income test. Now we learn that they will actually be awarded health care coverage by the state. Which can only happen by redirecting assets that would otherwise be deployed by the productive members of society in support of the broad economy, through personal consumption, investment, or entrepreneurial activities.
And small businesses would receive tax credits to help them pay for their employees. Which, when you look through the thin veil, really just means that taxpayers will again be subsidizing the health care costs of the employees of the small businesses.
To this point in the plan, the burden on the taxpayer has only grown. And given the sheer magnitude of health care costs, it has grown a lot. Yet Mr. Obama insists that his program won’t cost the taxpayer a dime. So, how will all that be paid for? Back to the FT…
And fourth, Mr Obama would pay for these measures by making cuts in payments to medical providers in the Medicare program for retirees as well as imposing a fee on the most expensive – or “Cadillac” – plans offered by insurers.
However, these so-called “pay-fors” only cover roughly half of the $900bn in costs Mr Obama laid out. The White House has yet to provide details of how it would fund the remainder of the subsidies…
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies
An analysis of Obamacare from David Galland of Casey Research;
(Part 2)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There you have it. In order to pay for this, the government will start by cutting the amount it pays to the doctors and others in the medical community who provide services to retirees.
A friend of mine has a son considering a career in medicine, and he is trying to dissuade him. Under the current setup, being a doctor is not a very attractive profession, weighed down as it is by heavy paperwork, the high cost of malpractice insurance… and the difficulty of getting paid by the government for Medicare patients. And when you do get paid, the payments are already capped by government dictate.
Under the Obama plan, in addition to having to cope with tremendous new demand for medical services (people are reckless consumers of medical care when it’s paid for by someone else), the medical community will have to provide those services for reduced compensation. And even that will be constantly degraded by the coming inflation.
But won’t they make it up on volume? Perhaps, to some small extent. But most of the doctors I know already work full time, and then some. To meet the new demand, therefore, they’ll have to cram in more and more patients, assuring that the overall quality of care goes down.
How else will the administration pay for its plan? As noted by the FT, in addition to cutting payments to the medical profession, it will also add taxes to “Cadillac” plans, a term yet to be defined. But it is easily understood as yet another tax.
As for the rest of the revenue shortfall to cover the $1 trillion (++) cost of this program, per the FT, that has yet to be revealed.
Undertaking even the quick analysis I have just done, a few things become clear. First and foremost, the people that currently can afford to buy the health insurance coverage they have will, under the Obama plan, also have to pay the health care costs for those who cannot. You may think that is okay, or not. But there’s no denying that it is a direct transfer of wealth – effected not by a voluntary transfer but through the coercive power of the state.
Secondly, the bulk of this transfer will fall on the young and healthy. Under the current regime, they are able to leverage their good health into lower insurance premiums. Under the Obama plan, their premiums will rise far more, as a percentage of what they would otherwise pay, than they will for an older person or those who offer a less attractive insurance risk. “From each according to his health, to each according to his need” might be a good slogan. Again, being forced to pick up the tab for the less well off may be fine with the youth, from among whom the president draws his most ardent supporters. I’m just pointing it out.
Finally, the actual tally of the costs of Obama’s program will be far, far higher than projected. That’s because the adoption of this plan, should that occur, would come just ahead of the tidal wave of aging baby boomers and all their escalating medical demands. Demands that would be greatly increased because, for so many, the costs of health care would effectively drop to zero. But not for the taxpayer or those who fail the income test and so must buy into the scheme. For those folks, the quip “If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait to see what it costs when it is free” will ring painfully true.
Adding to those costs, of course, are the new legion of bureaucrats that will need to be hired to administer the program.
Any positives in the president’s speech? Well, he did indicate that he’d be willing to look into medical tort reform. But I take that as a red herring. There are too many lawyers in too many high places for anything meaningful to occur in that regard.
The bottom line, as I see it, is that Obama’s plan, while no doubt well intentioned, is ultimately nothing more than a convoluted way of nationalizing health care, with the taxpayers lifted onto the hook for the cost.
Which is where the glue trap I referenced in the very first point of Obama’s plan comes in. By insisting that everyone has to have insurance and enforcing penalties if you don’t – but only for those that have money – Obama’s plan effectively traps the taxpayer into paying whatever it ultimately decides you should pay, extracting the money directly through taxes and indirectly through the higher premiums that must result.
You may like the idea of the haves being forced to pay for the have-nots, or not, I am just calling it like I see it.
An analysis of Obamacare from David Galland of Casey Research;
(Part 2)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There you have it. In order to pay for this, the government will start by cutting the amount it pays to the doctors and others in the medical community who provide services to retirees.
A friend of mine has a son considering a career in medicine, and he is trying to dissuade him. Under the current setup, being a doctor is not a very attractive profession, weighed down as it is by heavy paperwork, the high cost of malpractice insurance… and the difficulty of getting paid by the government for Medicare patients. And when you do get paid, the payments are already capped by government dictate.
Under the Obama plan, in addition to having to cope with tremendous new demand for medical services (people are reckless consumers of medical care when it’s paid for by someone else), the medical community will have to provide those services for reduced compensation. And even that will be constantly degraded by the coming inflation.
But won’t they make it up on volume? Perhaps, to some small extent. But most of the doctors I know already work full time, and then some. To meet the new demand, therefore, they’ll have to cram in more and more patients, assuring that the overall quality of care goes down.
How else will the administration pay for its plan? As noted by the FT, in addition to cutting payments to the medical profession, it will also add taxes to “Cadillac” plans, a term yet to be defined. But it is easily understood as yet another tax.
As for the rest of the revenue shortfall to cover the $1 trillion (++) cost of this program, per the FT, that has yet to be revealed.
Undertaking even the quick analysis I have just done, a few things become clear. First and foremost, the people that currently can afford to buy the health insurance coverage they have will, under the Obama plan, also have to pay the health care costs for those who cannot. You may think that is okay, or not. But there’s no denying that it is a direct transfer of wealth – effected not by a voluntary transfer but through the coercive power of the state.
Secondly, the bulk of this transfer will fall on the young and healthy. Under the current regime, they are able to leverage their good health into lower insurance premiums. Under the Obama plan, their premiums will rise far more, as a percentage of what they would otherwise pay, than they will for an older person or those who offer a less attractive insurance risk. “From each according to his health, to each according to his need” might be a good slogan. Again, being forced to pick up the tab for the less well off may be fine with the youth, from among whom the president draws his most ardent supporters. I’m just pointing it out.
Finally, the actual tally of the costs of Obama’s program will be far, far higher than projected. That’s because the adoption of this plan, should that occur, would come just ahead of the tidal wave of aging baby boomers and all their escalating medical demands. Demands that would be greatly increased because, for so many, the costs of health care would effectively drop to zero. But not for the taxpayer or those who fail the income test and so must buy into the scheme. For those folks, the quip “If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait to see what it costs when it is free” will ring painfully true.
Adding to those costs, of course, are the new legion of bureaucrats that will need to be hired to administer the program.
Any positives in the president’s speech? Well, he did indicate that he’d be willing to look into medical tort reform. But I take that as a red herring. There are too many lawyers in too many high places for anything meaningful to occur in that regard.
The bottom line, as I see it, is that Obama’s plan, while no doubt well intentioned, is ultimately nothing more than a convoluted way of nationalizing health care, with the taxpayers lifted onto the hook for the cost.
Which is where the glue trap I referenced in the very first point of Obama’s plan comes in. By insisting that everyone has to have insurance and enforcing penalties if you don’t – but only for those that have money – Obama’s plan effectively traps the taxpayer into paying whatever it ultimately decides you should pay, extracting the money directly through taxes and indirectly through the higher premiums that must result.
You may like the idea of the haves being forced to pay for the have-nots, or not, I am just calling it like I see it.
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies
Health care for the family is $2,600.00 / yr
Retirement is 7% + 10% more for a 401(k).
26 vacation days
13 sick days
10 holidays
America IS a great country.
Actually, if they let everyone buy into FEHBA, it may work.
No, that IS my current job. For which I get paid a princely sum.
Health care for the family is $2,600.00 / yr
Retirement is 7% + 10% more for a 401(k).
26 vacation days
13 sick days
10 holidays
America IS a great country.
Actually, if they let everyone buy into FEHBA, it may work.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies
I think I want your job. Those are freaking amazing numbers.
I think I want your job. Those are freaking amazing numbers.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies
'sick days' are bs!!!
'sick days' are bs!!!
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies
I actually prefer everything lumped together as PTO, and 39 x 8 = 312 PTO hours is INCREDIBLY generous.
After I'm 5 years vested with my current employer I will have 160 PTO hours, 5 fixed holidays and 2 floating holidays. That amounts to 27 days against joecct's 49. And my benefits package is above the industry mean.
I repeat: nice work if you can get it.
joecct: what are you permitted to roll over? Typically I've seen a 100 hour limit (mine is 40, the only part of my package I complain about).
'sick days' are bs!!!
I actually prefer everything lumped together as PTO, and 39 x 8 = 312 PTO hours is INCREDIBLY generous.
After I'm 5 years vested with my current employer I will have 160 PTO hours, 5 fixed holidays and 2 floating holidays. That amounts to 27 days against joecct's 49. And my benefits package is above the industry mean.
I repeat: nice work if you can get it.
joecct: what are you permitted to roll over? Typically I've seen a 100 hour limit (mine is 40, the only part of my package I complain about).
Last edited:
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies
Annual leave: 240 hrs. If you're in the Senior Executive Service (I'm not), it is a bit more. You get paid for the unused portion when you retire.
Sick leave: unlimited - it also adds to my computed months in service. Thus when I retire next September with 31.33 yrs of service, my unused sick leave will add to that.
Note that I am under the old retirement system (CSRS). The new retirement system (FERS) does not add unused sick leave to computed service - hence many near retirement start taking sick instead of annual leave as their time winds down. But, Uncle Sam does match your 401(k) contribution, which it does not for me.
Let me check the holidays
New Years
MLK
Presidents
Memorial Day
July 4
Labor Day
Columbus Day
Veterans Day
Thanksgiving Day
Christmas
+ every 4 years Inauguration Day
Yep, that's 10!!
The Federal Government is hiring! See www.usajobs.com. If you want to see the complete bennies packages available, go to www.opm.gov.
Kepler
Annual leave: 240 hrs. If you're in the Senior Executive Service (I'm not), it is a bit more. You get paid for the unused portion when you retire.
Sick leave: unlimited - it also adds to my computed months in service. Thus when I retire next September with 31.33 yrs of service, my unused sick leave will add to that.
Note that I am under the old retirement system (CSRS). The new retirement system (FERS) does not add unused sick leave to computed service - hence many near retirement start taking sick instead of annual leave as their time winds down. But, Uncle Sam does match your 401(k) contribution, which it does not for me.
Let me check the holidays
New Years
MLK
Presidents
Memorial Day
July 4
Labor Day
Columbus Day
Veterans Day
Thanksgiving Day
Christmas
+ every 4 years Inauguration Day
Yep, that's 10!!
The Federal Government is hiring! See www.usajobs.com. If you want to see the complete bennies packages available, go to www.opm.gov.
Last edited:
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies
just repeating... that's what any federal employee gets after 10 years service.
just repeating... that's what any federal employee gets after 10 years service.
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies
0-3 13 vaca days
3-15 20 vaca days
>15 26 vaca days
everyone gets 13 sick days + the 10 holidays
15 years.
0-3 13 vaca days
3-15 20 vaca days
>15 26 vaca days
everyone gets 13 sick days + the 10 holidays
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies
Another very good speech by Obama in Minny. Mostly a reprise of the DC speech, but it's excellent to see a Dem actually use the bully pulpit as effectively as the right has for years.
I was deeply skeptical that health care would get passed over both sincere if misplaced fears and cynically manufactured outage (guess who Joe Wilson's leading campaign contributor is?), but now... it's possible.
A lot of powerful forces do not want this particular boat rocked. They better quadruple the secret service contingent on him.
Another very good speech by Obama in Minny. Mostly a reprise of the DC speech, but it's excellent to see a Dem actually use the bully pulpit as effectively as the right has for years.
I was deeply skeptical that health care would get passed over both sincere if misplaced fears and cynically manufactured outage (guess who Joe Wilson's leading campaign contributor is?), but now... it's possible.
A lot of powerful forces do not want this particular boat rocked. They better quadruple the secret service contingent on him.
- Status