Florida Governor says NO to Obamacare....if he pulls this off he's my hero....

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/florida-gov-rick-scott-still-won-t-implement-153204322--election.html

Florida Republican Gov. Rick Scott says he will not implement the state health insurance exchanges mandated in the 2010 federal health care law despite President Barack Obama's re-election.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune reports:

Speaking on the New College of Florida campus following a meeting of the state's university governing board, Scott said it will cost taxpayers and business owners too much to expand Medicaid and set up health insurance exchanges as called for under the law.

"No one has been able to show me that that health care exchange is going to do anything rather than raise taxes, raise the cost of our companies to do business," Scott said, adding that expanding Medicaid would also require tax increases.

It doesn't matter,Teo, the govt. will set up the exchanges so Scott is wasting his time and reelection.

I hate Scott. He's screwed the teachers in this state his entire time in office, BUT I will take another look at him for voting if he can usurp the Kenyan-in Chief on this issue.

Dreamsglore wrote:It doesn't matter,Teo, the govt. will set up the exchanges so Scott is wasting his time and reelection.

...and that will be the downfall of Obamacare too. That is the information that the states need to shoot down this as an unlawful tax.

With all the exemptions that have been given out and are going to be handed out who is going to be left to pay for this? If you stop and think about it this wasn't this suppose to allow or force businesses to provide low cost healthcare, if thousands of businesses get exemptions and businesses are reducing hours to avoid complying with the mandate aren't we getting screwed. Makes you wonder if this wasn't done by design. Hand out exemptions, rely on businesses to reduce hours to avoid complying with mandate, create laws forcing people to buy healthcare, create federal exchanges to herd people into because they have no other option to get healthcare! People say it is crazy to think this is a government take over of healthcare but it is sure starting to look like it.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:It doesn't matter,Teo, the govt. will set up the exchanges so Scott is wasting his time and reelection.

...and that will be the downfall of Obamacare too. That is the information that the states need to shoot down this as an unlawful tax.

Did you just post that? I mean I can't believe you would post that after the Supreme Court just ruled on it. It's federal law Pacedog! Do you not get that? The Govt. has been prepared for the repugs refusing and are going to set up the exchanges no matter what they say.

alecto wrote:With all the exemptions that have been given out and are going to be handed out who is going to be left to pay for this? If you stop and think about it this wasn't this suppose to allow or force businesses to provide low cost healthcare, if thousands of businesses get exemptions and businesses are reducing hours to avoid complying with the mandate aren't we getting screwed. Makes you wonder if this wasn't done by design. Hand out exemptions, rely on businesses to reduce hours to avoid complying with mandate, create laws forcing people to buy healthcare, create federal exchanges to herd people into because they have no other option to get healthcare! People say it is crazy to think this is a government take over of healthcare but it is sure starting to look like it.

Come on now.Use your noggin. Who do you think is paying for the uninsured now? Most insurers provide healthcare.You all are acting like nobody ever went to the ER's and got care.How does reducing hours make them not comply w/ the mandate. It goes by the number of employees you have.

alecto wrote:With all the exemptions that have been given out and are going to be handed out who is going to be left to pay for this? If you stop and think about it this wasn't this suppose to allow or force businesses to provide low cost healthcare, if thousands of businesses get exemptions and businesses are reducing hours to avoid complying with the mandate aren't we getting screwed. Makes you wonder if this wasn't done by design. Hand out exemptions, rely on businesses to reduce hours to avoid complying with mandate, create laws forcing people to buy healthcare, create federal exchanges to herd people into because they have no other option to get healthcare! People say it is crazy to think this is a government take over of healthcare but it is sure starting to look like it.

You know I'm a single payer health insurance supporter, so I'm biased. That aside, what you are saying may be true. If nothing else, the ACA is is taking an individual's ability to obtain health care insurance out of the hands of the employers and putting it back into the hands of the citizens. In my opinion, that's a good thing, though the transition will prove painful to many.

Will the ACA lead to single payer? I am beginning to think it may, if a large number of employers decide to stop offering health insurance as a benefit AND the new exchanges prove to be too expensive for the average worker. The populace will demand an alternative, and single payer may just be the solution. It's a rather brilliant way to obtain support for single payer.

Dreamsglore wrote:

alecto wrote:With all the exemptions that have been given out and are going to be handed out who is going to be left to pay for this? If you stop and think about it this wasn't this suppose to allow or force businesses to provide low cost healthcare, if thousands of businesses get exemptions and businesses are reducing hours to avoid complying with the mandate aren't we getting screwed. Makes you wonder if this wasn't done by design. Hand out exemptions, rely on businesses to reduce hours to avoid complying with mandate, create laws forcing people to buy healthcare, create federal exchanges to herd people into because they have no other option to get healthcare! People say it is crazy to think this is a government take over of healthcare but it is sure starting to look like it.

Come on now.Use your noggin. Who do you think is paying for the uninsured now? Most insurers provide healthcare.You all are acting like nobody ever went to the ER's and got care.How does reducing hours make them not comply w/ the mandate. It goes by the number of employees you have.

From what I understand employers with 50 or more employees have to provide health insurance for full time employees (40 hr/wk) employers do not have to provide health insurance to part time employees (30hr/wk).

alecto wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

alecto wrote:With all the exemptions that have been given out and are going to be handed out who is going to be left to pay for this? If you stop and think about it this wasn't this suppose to allow or force businesses to provide low cost healthcare, if thousands of businesses get exemptions and businesses are reducing hours to avoid complying with the mandate aren't we getting screwed. Makes you wonder if this wasn't done by design. Hand out exemptions, rely on businesses to reduce hours to avoid complying with mandate, create laws forcing people to buy healthcare, create federal exchanges to herd people into because they have no other option to get healthcare! People say it is crazy to think this is a government take over of healthcare but it is sure starting to look like it.

Come on now.Use your noggin. Who do you think is paying for the uninsured now? Most insurers provide healthcare.You all are acting like nobody ever went to the ER's and got care.How does reducing hours make them not comply w/ the mandate. It goes by the number of employees you have.

From what I understand employers with 50 or more employees have to provide health insurance for full time employees (40 hr/wk) employers do not have to provide health insurance to part time employees (30hr/wk).

Unless they have and ObamaWaiver, which was handed out like candy to some of the large corporations, exempting them from complying with that directive.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

alecto wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

alecto wrote:With all the exemptions that have been given out and are going to be handed out who is going to be left to pay for this? If you stop and think about it this wasn't this suppose to allow or force businesses to provide low cost healthcare, if thousands of businesses get exemptions and businesses are reducing hours to avoid complying with the mandate aren't we getting screwed. Makes you wonder if this wasn't done by design. Hand out exemptions, rely on businesses to reduce hours to avoid complying with mandate, create laws forcing people to buy healthcare, create federal exchanges to herd people into because they have no other option to get healthcare! People say it is crazy to think this is a government take over of healthcare but it is sure starting to look like it.

Come on now.Use your noggin. Who do you think is paying for the uninsured now? Most insurers provide healthcare.You all are acting like nobody ever went to the ER's and got care.How does reducing hours make them not comply w/ the mandate. It goes by the number of employees you have.

From what I understand employers with 50 or more employees have to provide health insurance for full time employees (40 hr/wk) employers do not have to provide health insurance to part time employees (30hr/wk).

Alecto is correct.

Although an employer with greater than 50 employees must now provide insurance for their full time employees or pay a fine, the same employer does not have to pay insurance nor pay a fine for employees who work less than 30 hours per week.

PBulldog2 wrote:
Alecto is correct.

Although an employer with greater than 50 employees must now provide insurance for their full time employees or pay a fine, the same employer does not have to pay insurance nor pay a fine for employees who work less than 30 hours per week.

So where is this going to leave an employee who just got hours reduced to 30 and still has to buy health insurance?

alecto wrote:

PBulldog2 wrote:
Alecto is correct.

Although an employer with greater than 50 employees must now provide insurance for their full time employees or pay a fine, the same employer does not have to pay insurance nor pay a fine for employees who work less than 30 hours per week.

So where is this going to leave an employee who just got hours reduced to 30 and still has to buy health insurance?

They will get a voucher from the govt.

alecto wrote:

PBulldog2 wrote:
Alecto is correct.

Although an employer with greater than 50 employees must now provide insurance for their full time employees or pay a fine, the same employer does not have to pay insurance nor pay a fine for employees who work less than 30 hours per week.

So where is this going to leave an employee who just got hours reduced to 30 and still has to buy health insurance?

Exactly where you think...

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZlfi_qlTnw



...Paying for it themselves and looking for a second job to try to make ends meet.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:I hate Scott. He's screwed the teachers in this state his entire time in office, BUT I will take another look at him for voting if he can usurp the Kenyan-in Chief on this issue.

So you hate Obama worse than you hate Scott... That is just plain amusing.... You'll suffer under Rick Scott and all he can throw against you, so long as tries to undermine the President. You can form a club: Martyrs Against Obama.

Dreamsglore wrote:

alecto wrote:

PBulldog2 wrote:
Alecto is correct.

Although an employer with greater than 50 employees must now provide insurance for their full time employees or pay a fine, the same employer does not have to pay insurance nor pay a fine for employees who work less than 30 hours per week.

So where is this going to leave an employee who just got hours reduced to 30 and still has to buy health insurance?

They will get a voucher from the govt.

So we will have more people with vouchers still going to the ER's. I do not see how this is helping.

alecto wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

alecto wrote:

PBulldog2 wrote:
Alecto is correct.

Although an employer with greater than 50 employees must now provide insurance for their full time employees or pay a fine, the same employer does not have to pay insurance nor pay a fine for employees who work less than 30 hours per week.

So where is this going to leave an employee who just got hours reduced to 30 and still has to buy health insurance?

They will get a voucher from the govt.

So we will have more people with vouchers still going to the ER's. I do not see how this is helping.

Probably but they'll have insurance that time.

Dreamsglore wrote:Probably but they'll have insurance that time.

Yeah that makes a whole lot of sense...

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Yhq1EwO5E



NOT!

Dreamsglore wrote:

alecto wrote:

PBulldog2 wrote:
Alecto is correct.

Although an employer with greater than 50 employees must now provide insurance for their full time employees or pay a fine, the same employer does not have to pay insurance nor pay a fine for employees who work less than 30 hours per week.

So where is this going to leave an employee who just got hours reduced to 30 and still has to buy health insurance?

They will get a voucher from the govt.

thats nice, they get a voucher from the gov but they are so happy they cant find a job that is full time. brilliant


btw guys, scott is just trying to stave off perhaps some tax increase for us by doing this. healtcare is still ruined. the cuts starting n jan will begin the death. there really is nothing left to say on it. its ugly out here, i hope yall will be happy....but he he you wont be

alecto wrote:

PBulldog2 wrote:
Alecto is correct.

Although an employer with greater than 50 employees must now provide insurance for their full time employees or pay a fine, the same employer does not have to pay insurance nor pay a fine for employees who work less than 30 hours per week.

So where is this going to leave an employee who just got hours reduced to 30 and still has to buy health insurance?

Until October, 2013, it's going to leave those employees in the dust. October 2013 is the day the federal exchanges will roll out. At the end of this post is a link to an article I just read regarding competition between private insurers and the federal plans. The federal plans were formed to take the place of the public option (although it sure sounds like a public option to me.)

Dreams alluded to the federal subsidy people who make less than a certain amount will receive in order to help them purchase private insurance (this is a federal kick-back to private insurers, of course, and it burns me up no end.) I don't know when this starts, but it's not in effect yet. I'll see if I can find out.

Here's the article I mentioned above:

http://www.fiercehealthpayer.com/story/national-plans-bring-competition-insurance-exchanges/2012-10-31

alecto wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

alecto wrote:

PBulldog2 wrote:
Alecto is correct.

Although an employer with greater than 50 employees must now provide insurance for their full time employees or pay a fine, the same employer does not have to pay insurance nor pay a fine for employees who work less than 30 hours per week.

So where is this going to leave an employee who just got hours reduced to 30 and still has to buy health insurance?

They will get a voucher from the govt.

So we will have more people with vouchers still going to the ER's. I do not see how this is helping.

People won't be receiving "vouchers." What they will receive is a federal subsidy to help them purchase private insurance. People will not receive a subsidy unless they are purchasing private insurance.

Hows federal exchanges going to help people who are only finding jobs at 30 hours?

sure, they will have ins. what about full time employment?

I tell ya Im about done with this topic and I feel bad for those of you who still have your heads in the sand over this. You are not going to be happy when the shit hits the fan on this, and it already has last week actually.

I an garendamnteeya anyone in managment in the health feild right now has been having a really upset stomach the last week.

Here you go - the subsidy will actually be an advance tax credit that will be available to people who make a certain income whether or not they owe taxes. It does start in 2014.

http://healthreform.kff.org/en/faq/who-will-be-eligible-for-subsidies.aspx

Penny Tration wrote:Hows federal exchanges going to help people who are only finding jobs at 30 hours?

sure, they will have ins. what about full time employment?

I tell ya Im about done with this topic and I feel bad for those of you who still have your heads in the sand over this. You are not going to be happy when the shit hits the fan on this, and it already has last week actually.

I an garendamnteeya anyone in managment in the health feild right now has been having a really upset stomach the last week.

I am so sorry if this has affected you. I really am. BTW, I liked "wildgirlfromthewoods" better than your current name. WGFTW was a cool name. I might steal it.

Again, I don't support all of the facets of the ACA. I'm just trying to find information and post it for those who have asked.

It's worrisome that some people believe we will be receiving "vouchers" to buy health care. There will be no checks in the mail, no vouchers. What we will have is some convoluted federal subsidy that goes directly to private insurers, not to the citizens. Even that doesn't start until 2014. I don't know if they mean this will cover the tax year 2013 retroactively, or what.

Dreamsglore wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:It doesn't matter,Teo, the govt. will set up the exchanges so Scott is wasting his time and reelection.

...and that will be the downfall of Obamacare too. That is the information that the states need to shoot down this as an unlawful tax.

Did you just post that? I mean I can't believe you would post that after the Supreme Court just ruled on it. It's federal law Pacedog! Do you not get that? The Govt. has been prepared for the repugs refusing and are going to set up the exchanges no matter what they say.

Because the SCOTUS approved this as a tax, it can be challenged when the tax is fully implemented and not before then. You read it as well when Roberts decided his legacy was more important than ruling by the actual Constitution.