Hillary Clinton Thread

[Theo520]

As I have said it isn’t easy or simple to satisfy everyone. I’m at the point where I’m starting to believe it’s an impossibility.

Nope, it was easy. Before ACA went national many states had such exemptions for within their borders. The Obama admin had promised this would continue, but instead went hardline.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Nope, it was easy. Before ACA went national many states had such exemptions for within their borders. The Obama admin had promised this would continue, but instead went hardline.

Many lower income sick people went without healthcare too who now have some.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Many lower income sick people went without healthcare too who now have some.

So some say, but sick people certainly weren’t targeted for the benefits, though undoubtedly some did. Medicaid, we are told, took on another 17 million people. So, of those, some probably didn’t already have employment-based insurance of a better sort, though some undoubtedly did. Some probably didn’t have to dispossess themselves of assets, though doubtless some did. Some were chronically ill, but probably most were not.

Of those who went on the exchanges, some were well subsidized and have no deductibles. Some were well subsidized and had huge deductibles. Some are poorly subsidized and have huge deductibles. Some get no subsidies at all, pay a lot more than they would have otherwise, and have huge deductibles. Some would have been sick, but mostly not.

Some with employment-based insurance no longer do because of the additional cost of all the mandates. Some with employment-based insurance are paying in a lot more contribution than they did before and have bigger deductibles. Some would have been sick, but mostly not.

And some with high incomes are paying more than they ever did. Some are sick and most are not.

On balance, it seems the whole system was turned on its head when federal aid to the states’ forced placement programs for the few who were really in need, could probably have been cheaper and easier.

 

[Ridgerunner]

‘Wind it down and put it in mothballs’: Media calls for the Clintons to close Clinton Foundation: reut.rs/2bFfq9s

Might be a bit cynical of me, but the Clinton promise to stop accepting donations after the election (assuming Hillary is elected) is a “pay quickly now, or miss the gravy train later” call. I feel pretty confident this promise will be illusory but will also significantly raise contributions between now and November.

 

[YADA]

I just suppose my values extend beyond the freedom of a person to either not have, for instance, blood covered in their healthcare or collecting unemployment. But thanks anyway.

The JW’s also operate hospitals and have members who are doctors and nurses … are you willing to force the hospital and doctor to perform blood transfusions?

Will you force the Adventist hospital to serve other than vegetarian meals because you demand the the freedom to have the healthcare option to have blood covered and meatloaf and or ham on the hospital food tray?

What about a Jewish and or Muslim hospital - should they be compelled to serve bacon, pork chops and ham?

 

[oneofmany]

youtube.com/watch?v=EumOa4dCbRA

Important interview with Dinesh De’Souza the man who made “Hillary’s America”.

 

[Sy_Noe]

The JW’s also operate hospitals and have members who are doctors and nurses … are you willing to force the hospital and doctor to perform blood transfusions?

Will you force the Adventist hospital to serve other than vegetarian meals because you demand the the freedom to have the healthcare option to have blood covered and meatloaf and or ham on the hospital food tray?

What about a Jewish and or Muslim hospital - should they be compelled to serve bacon, pork chops and ham?

No idea why you bring up non vegetarian meals and meatloaf and pork and bacon and ham. Have you ever heard the term “clean meats” and other sources of protein and nutrients that pork might provide? Not all Adventists and Muslims and Jews are vegetarians. Some consume clean meats. But is the blood for a consenting patient required for their life and health? If so, for me personally, yes for people who need blood and consent to it or for instance for a sick 2nd grader whose parents did not consent but who needs blood, yes for me the right to life in such cases would trump religious freedom. Like I’ve repeatedly said though everything in life is not black and white. There are a lot of gray areas which do not lend themselves to easy choices. But blood for life and health in such cases, I’d probably go along with rather than risking the patient’s death. I believe there have even been court cases to this effect. Hope that helps because I am not going to take the time to go over every possible scenario.

 

[DeniseNY]

A pattern emerges
Clinton Inc., at home and abroad

arkansasonline.com/news/2016/aug/24/a-pattern-emerges-20160824/

To quote Jonathan Chait, a columnist who leans heavily to port: This new policy is an “inadequate response to the conflicts of interest inherent in the Clinton Foundation,” and shows that Hillary Clinton “has not fully grasped the severity of her reputational problem.” Or maybe she has, but just doesn’t care. Those of us who watched her rise here in Arkansas will know she’s been getting away with ethical shortcuts for a long, long time and the lower she sinks, the higher she rises in the esteem of her fans–or just of those who have benefited from her largesse. “Ultimately,” Mr. Chait concludes, “there’s no way around this problem without closing down the Clinton Foundation altogether.” What, and lose all that money flowing into the foundation from all over the world? Fat chance…

 

[Yeoman]

Maybe this has already been answered in this thread, or the Trump thread, but let me ask it anyway.

I’m confused on what I can say about actual candidates and not get immediately moderated. I.e., what are my boundaries.

I had another thread merely noting that there was a former Catholic priest running in my area and I wondered how to address him and the very first reply was from a moderator instructing people that they could only speak as to that, and not the politics of it?

I’ll respect the moderators, but that seems really a bit much. Why can’t the poltics be discussed?

And now I see there’s a Trump thread and a Clinton thread. So obviously some politics an be discussed. I don’t want to see my thread evaporate (which tends to happen, for example, every time I try to post something on the Eastern Rites and mention the Orthodox), but I’d like to post a thread re third parties. But if that’s prohibited, I don’t wan to run afoul of policy. After all, I don’t own the site.

I’d also like to post a thread about Catholic shyness regarding officially commenting on politicians. But same thing, I fear such a thread would evaporate instantly.

So, what are the parameters of political threads?

 

[qui_est_ce]

So some say, but sick people certainly weren’t targeted for the benefits, though undoubtedly some did. Medicaid, we are told, took on another 17 million people. So, of those, some probably didn’t already have employment-based insurance of a better sort, though some undoubtedly did. Some probably didn’t have to dispossess themselves of assets, though doubtless some did. Some were chronically ill, but probably most were not.

Of those who went on the exchanges, some were well subsidized and have no deductibles. Some were well subsidized and had huge deductibles. Some are poorly subsidized and have huge deductibles. Some get no subsidies at all, pay a lot more than they would have otherwise, and have huge deductibles. Some would have been sick, but mostly not.

Some with employment-based insurance no longer do because of the additional cost of all the mandates. Some with employment-based insurance are paying in a lot more contribution than they did before and have bigger deductibles. Some would have been sick, but mostly not.

And some with high incomes are paying more than they ever did. Some are sick and most are not.

On balance, it seems the whole system was turned on its head when federal aid to the states’ forced placement programs for the few who were really in need, could probably have been cheaper and easier.

It is interesting. My company is in the janitorial business, so most of our employees are lower income. We have chosen to offer subsidized health insurance to our over 30 hours a week employees at a cost of 9.5% of their gross earnings to them. We pay the balance. Of the 30 who are eligible, 23 have declined coverage. Many have said they can’t afford it.

Wonder what they will do at income tax time?

 

[Sy_Noe]

So some say, but sick people certainly weren’t targeted for the benefits, though undoubtedly some did. Medicaid, we are told, took on another 17 million people. So, of those, some probably didn’t already have employment-based insurance of a better sort, though some undoubtedly did. Some probably didn’t have to dispossess themselves of assets, though doubtless some did. Some were chronically ill, but probably most were not.

Of those who went on the exchanges, some were well subsidized and have no deductibles. Some were well subsidized and had huge deductibles. Some are poorly subsidized and have huge deductibles. Some get no subsidies at all, pay a lot more than they would have otherwise, and have huge deductibles. Some would have been sick, but mostly not.

Some with employment-based insurance no longer do because of the additional cost of all the mandates. Some with employment-based insurance are paying in a lot more contribution than they did before and have bigger deductibles. Some would have been sick, but mostly not.

And some with high incomes are paying more than they ever did. Some are sick and most are not.

On balance, it seems the whole system was turned on its head when federal aid to the states’ forced placement programs for the few who were really in need, could probably have been cheaper and easier.

I don’t think many argue that healthcare coverage in the US is ideal yet. But the previous model surely wasn’t either. Indeed some are well subsidized and now have affordable healthcare when they did not previously. Or have been able to get care through Medicaid. People with pre-existing conditions now can not be denied as they were before. What blessings! More still needs to be done. I’m going to worry less though about some with higher incomes paying more than they ever did than I’m concerned about some others. The people for instance caught between their Republican governors and legislators not expanding Medicaid and yet having too little income to qualify for a subsidy and with having no public option are more a worry and concern to me.

 

[Michael68]

It is interesting. My company is in the janitorial business, so most of our employees are lower income. We have chosen to offer subsidized health insurance to our over 30 hours a week employees at a cost of 9.5% of their gross earnings to them. We pay the balance. Of the 30 who are eligible, 23 have declined coverage. Many have said they can’t afford it.

Wonder what they will do at income tax time?

Get it all back plus some do to the earned income tax credit

 

[Sy_Noe]

It is interesting. My company is in the janitorial business, so most of our employees are lower income. We have chosen to offer subsidized health insurance to our over 30 hours a week employees at a cost of 9.5% of their gross earnings to them. We pay the balance. Of the 30 who are eligible, 23 have declined coverage. Many have said they can’t afford it.

Wonder what they will do at income tax time?

I’m not at all sure if this would apply to them at tax time or not. I only know it says here if the income you are paying them is low enough and if their share of premiums after your contributions would total more than roughly 8 percent of their income, they may be able to avoid a penalty.

See under the section “You won’t pay a penalty if…”

“your income is low enough that your share of premiums (after federal subsidies and employer contributions) would total more than 8 percent of your income (this is increasing to 8.05 percent for 2015)”

healthinsurance.org/obamacare/obamacare-penalty-calculator/

The 9.5% you require of your lower income janitorial employees exceeds 8%.

 

[Theo520]

Many lower income sick people went without healthcare too who now have some.

Just the fed $ to extend Medicaid would have accomplished the same results,
without all the pain and disruption.