Bobs mom

Jenison, MI

#63 Oct 2, 2013
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
The truth.....
Every time the ultra conservatives in the House pushed through a funding bill that either defunded or delayed the ACA, the Senate sent back an amended version restoring it. This is completely within the rights of the Senate to do so, yet the House can't seem to learn that their weak attempt to subvert the will of the people isn't going to work.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.
Repeal Obamacare has failed over 40 times, think about it!
You find a job yet?
Dark Moth

Byron Center, MI

#64 Oct 2, 2013
pipedream wrote:
More T-bagger spin, scare tactics, lies and B.S. by the right wing extreme Bull $hit machine.
Ted Cruz says policy change by UPS left employees’ spouses “without health insurance” F A L S E
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...
Wiggley why don't you get your facts straight before you open your big trap?
I hope you get into a car accident and die slowly.
Dark Moth

Byron Center, MI

#65 Oct 2, 2013
Please die in a car accident pipefucker.
Dark Moth

Byron Center, MI

#66 Oct 2, 2013
I'm glad the Fed shut down. I say it's time to turn our collective backs on DC and watch it crumble into ruin and then rebuild it without socialist scum like pipedream.
Really

Wyoming, MI

#67 Oct 3, 2013
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm an Indepedent Really. Always have been and always will be. I've never voted the party line and never will.
Put that in your big mouth and chew on it Really.
Nice to know. Then you should talk like an independent instead of an Obama lemming. But then, lying IS your strong suit after all.
Really

Wyoming, MI

#68 Oct 3, 2013
pipedream wrote:
I am employed, gainfully, and I have great health, dental and vision insurance through my employer. My children will also be covered til they're 27 on my plan. ACA will not affect me. I've done my research.
No one really cares what you think Really. You're another broken record here. Go chase your tail around in circles and howl at the moon.
ACA will affect you but you are just too blind to see how it will affect you. And frankly, if you want to continue to play ostrich, that's your right. I will be giggling a lot, however, when your behind gets kicked very hard while you are hiding your head in the sand.

“SPEBSQSA”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#69 Oct 3, 2013
pipedream wrote:
More T-bagger spin, scare tactics, lies and B.S. by the right wing extreme Bull $hit machine.
Ted Cruz says policy change by UPS left employees’ spouses “without health insurance” F A L S E
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...
Wiggley why don't you get your facts straight before you open your big trap?
I have my facts straight. It's you that apparently doesn't perceive the english language very well.
A. Where did I ever quote Ted Cruz? Topic, page number and post number please...I'll wait.
B. Where did I claim that UPS employee's spouses were left without any insurance? Again, Topic, page number, and post number...I'm still waiting.

Get YOUR facts straight unless you enjoy making a fool out of yourself...

“SPEBSQSA”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#70 Oct 3, 2013
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither ACA nor Obama has anything to do with insurance coverage UPS offers its employees or their spouses. UPS does what it wants to do and what it thinks it can get away with. Go bark up another tree and howl at the moon Wiggley. You're not even close on this one.
Guess you'd like more govt. intervention in what private companies do to their employees?
Obama care had EVERYTHING to do with the decision made by UPS and their Health insurance offerings...
Quote from the article YOU posted..."The UPS memo specifically cited Obamacare as a factor in its decision: "Limiting plan eligibility is one way to manage ongoing health care costs."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...

Try reading the whole article before you post a link that disproves what you are claiming.

“SPEBSQSA”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#71 Oct 3, 2013
neecer wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Wiggley! Hope all is well with you.
It's not just UPS. We have one more year on our current plan and then the carrier itself is forced to discontinue it. I received my notice from my carrier last week. Why is this? Because if I met certain requirements, I didn't have to have a deductible and out of pocket costs. Guess we can't have that now can we??
Hey there neecer...all is well here, hope the same is true for you.

Yea, the insurance companies are not going to lose any money in this deal and they are going to leverage every penny from folks like you that they can.
Bob

Big Rapids, MI

#72 Oct 3, 2013
vox veritatis wrote:
<quoted text>
And the majority of the country disagrees with you...so...they are NOT representing the will of the people.
Gawd, you are a narcissistic piece of work there, tacobob
Keep telling yourself that......

Have you visited the health insurance exchange, or do you already have insurance provided to you?
Bob

Big Rapids, MI

#73 Oct 3, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama care had EVERYTHING to do with the decision made by UPS and their Health insurance offerings...
Quote from the article YOU posted..."The UPS memo specifically cited Obamacare as a factor in its decision: "Limiting plan eligibility is one way to manage ongoing health care costs."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...
Try reading the whole article before you post a link that disproves what you are claiming.
You and Ted are wrong.....

When UPS announced the change, it stated that IF the spouse worked for a company that was required to purchase insurance for their employees that they wouldn't cover JUST THOSE EMPLOYEES.

It shouldn't be too hard to see why any company would want to bear the expense of coverage for someone who already will have insurance coverage.

Have you visited a health insurance exchange, or are you already covered?

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#74 Oct 3, 2013
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
"Next problem is that the purpose of the House is to represent the will of the people."
So what do you think the two Senators do? I voted for both, and they both represent the way I feel on this issue.
Looks like my two against your one is another problem!
Our government was modeled after the British "House of Commons" and "House of Lords" with the Senate being our House of Lords. The House of Representatives is supposed to represent the people of the US equally while the Senate was not created to represent the people. That's why Senators were not elected by the people.

The founders were afraid that if we had a true democracy or if we just had a representative (House of Reps without the Senate) that the property of the weathly and landowners would be at risk. As Madison said, the purpose of the Senate is to protect and support the interests of the landowners and wealthy business owners against the majority.

Both groups have fallen a long way from their intent, but the basic design was not that they should always work together but that they should act as a check and balance against each other. That is what we are witnessing today.

And it isn't that my one is against your two because as you've seen, it is my one along with over two hundred other reps against the reps on the other side.

My question to you though is that in when the vote came up, for Michigan 9 reps voted for it, and 5 voted against it.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-201...

If the majority of Michigan reps voted in favor of the bill, why are the Senators going against the will of the people and voting against it? Seems like the people of Michigan want to fund the government and delay/defund the ACA. So why aren't our Senators truly representing our state?

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#75 Oct 3, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
Your credibility is sinking fast. You made no mention that the data posted was from post 28 until I called you out on it.
It would have been much more admirable of you to admit I am right and either say you forgot or failed to mention your source.
Your actions speak volumes about your charactor. It's OK to admit you made a mistake...I'm a forgiving person.
Take your pick...
Since post #28 and #29 were responses to the same person I didn't think I need to repeat the link in #29, however, realizing there are a lot of children on this forum who get picky over spelling, grammer and wanting the same link posted multiple times, you are right. Feel better?

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#76 Oct 3, 2013
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm an Indepedent Really. Always have been and always will be. I've never voted the party line and never will.
Put that in your big mouth and chew on it Really.


You are an independent? Really? In the last six Presidential elections how many times did you vote R and how many times did you vote D? Did your really vote for Bush and Obama?
Bob

Big Rapids, MI

#77 Oct 3, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
Our government was modeled after the British "House of Commons" and "House of Lords" with the Senate being our House of Lords. The House of Representatives is supposed to represent the people of the US equally while the Senate was not created to represent the people. That's why Senators were not elected by the people.
The founders were afraid that if we had a true democracy or if we just had a representative (House of Reps without the Senate) that the property of the weathly and landowners would be at risk. As Madison said, the purpose of the Senate is to protect and support the interests of the landowners and wealthy business owners against the majority.
Both groups have fallen a long way from their intent, but the basic design was not that they should always work together but that they should act as a check and balance against each other. That is what we are witnessing today.
And it isn't that my one is against your two because as you've seen, it is my one along with over two hundred other reps against the reps on the other side.
My question to you though is that in when the vote came up, for Michigan 9 reps voted for it, and 5 voted against it.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/113-201...
If the majority of Michigan reps voted in favor of the bill, why are the Senators going against the will of the people and voting against it? Seems like the people of Michigan want to fund the government and delay/defund the ACA. So why aren't our Senators truly representing our state?
Thanks for the un-needed history lesson on what the Senate was......

However, no matter how you want to twist it the fact remains that we the people now vote for our senators, and they therefor represent us. Have you gotten to vote for Senator lately? I have, and both of them support the ACA.

As far as elected representatives goes, it would make sense that the majority of them are in the republican camp as they are selected by the vote of districts rather than statewide as the senators are. If you weren't trying to justify a slanted look at it, you would realize that the majority in this state has spoken, and that voice is solidly democratic as our senators indicate.

However, if you really want to return to the good old days, explain how the situation would be any different than it is now. Seeing as how the state government has chosen to support inclusion in the ACA, the result is going to be the same.

Have you visited the health insurance exchange yet?

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#78 Oct 3, 2013
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
You and Ted are wrong.....
When UPS announced the change, it stated that IF the spouse worked for a company that was required to purchase insurance for their employees that they wouldn't cover JUST THOSE EMPLOYEES.
It shouldn't be too hard to see why any company would want to bear the expense of coverage for someone who already will have insurance coverage.
Have you visited a health insurance exchange, or are you already covered?
Sorry, Bob you are mistaken. UPS and lots of others said that if an employee's spouse can purchase insurance through the spouses employer, then they are not eligible to be insured through UPS. It isn't if the spouse was REQUIRED, simply if it is offered. The spouses covereage may be more expensive and/or lower quality but if the spouse is offered health insurance, than they are not eligible to be covered by UPS.

I've worked at companies that had the same policies so it isn't new. What changed was that the coverage requirements under the ACA have/will substantially increase the cost of insurance. So from a business POV, since the spouse can get coverage elsewhere there is no reason for UPS to pick up that cost when the spouse's employer can do so.

Where my wife works her company does not offer health insurance. Because my wife works I had to provide proof to my employer that she did not have the opportunity to purchase health insurance where she worked in order to have her on my policy.

Because of the ACA this is going to increase and I think a lot of businesses are going to compare the cost of covering the spouse versus having the spouse use the exchange. But that's what supporters of the ACA want, no employer health insurance and everyone under the government plan.
Bob

Big Rapids, MI

#79 Oct 3, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, Bob you are mistaken. UPS and lots of others said that if an employee's spouse can purchase insurance through the spouses employer, then they are not eligible to be insured through UPS. It isn't if the spouse was REQUIRED, simply if it is offered. The spouses covereage may be more expensive and/or lower quality but if the spouse is offered health insurance, than they are not eligible to be covered by UPS.
I've worked at companies that had the same policies so it isn't new. What changed was that the coverage requirements under the ACA have/will substantially increase the cost of insurance. So from a business POV, since the spouse can get coverage elsewhere there is no reason for UPS to pick up that cost when the spouse's employer can do so.
Where my wife works her company does not offer health insurance. Because my wife works I had to provide proof to my employer that she did not have the opportunity to purchase health insurance where she worked in order to have her on my policy.
Because of the ACA this is going to increase and I think a lot of businesses are going to compare the cost of covering the spouse versus having the spouse use the exchange. But that's what supporters of the ACA want, no employer health insurance and everyone under the government plan.
Can't you read?????????

If a spouse is employed by a company that HAS TO purchase insurance for that spouse, then UPS WILL NOT purchase a policy on someone who already has a policy. It has nothing to do with spouses who don't get employer paid insurance.

Example: If John Doe works for UPS, and his spouse Jane Doe works for FedEx, then both spouses will get employer paid insurance from their respective employers, as prescribed under the ACA. Neither UPS or FedEx would be expected to purchase a policy for a spouse already insured by another company.

It's very easy to understand, and if you refuse to be blinded by something you've been told to fear, it makes sense that neither business should be required to buy something that isn't needed.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#80 Oct 3, 2013
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't you read?????????
If a spouse is employed by a company that HAS TO purchase insurance for that spouse, then UPS WILL NOT purchase a policy on someone who already has a policy. It has nothing to do with spouses who don't get employer paid insurance.
Example: If John Doe works for UPS, and his spouse Jane Doe works for FedEx, then both spouses will get employer paid insurance from their respective employers, as prescribed under the ACA. Neither UPS or FedEx would be expected to purchase a policy for a spouse already insured by another company.
It's very easy to understand, and if you refuse to be blinded by something you've been told to fear, it makes sense that neither business should be required to buy something that isn't needed.
The point that UPS made is that up until the ACA, if John Doe works for UPS, and his spouse Jane Doe works for FedEx,then they could decide if they both wanted to be covered by UPS, both by FedEx, or each with their own employer. So a lot of Jane Doe were covered by UPS even though they had the option of getting their insurance from FedEx.

Now, because of the ACA John and Jane have no choice, other than does UPS or FedEx cover the kids. Continuing the example, John Doe works for UPS and Jane Doe works for Bill's Bakery. The bakery offers the cheapest insurance possible and because it is small, the rates are relatively high. Previously Jane could get better insurance though UPS and because UPS is large, the addition of her to the family policy was very cheap. Now, Jane either gets a lower quality policy at a higher cost through the bakery, or she goes to the exchange and gets what she can, also at a higher cost than what she was paying with UPS.

Your assertion that "Neither UPS or FedEx would be expected to purchase a policy for a spouse already insured by another company" is wrong. My wife and I have been in positions where she was covered by both my company and by her employer. And we've been in positions where we could have been covered by my employer or hers. It was our choice. I'll agree that many companies won't let you double cover someone, but that's the insurance company's policy. However the UPS example of saying "if your spouse is able to purchase insurance through their employer, you do not have the option to include your spouse on your UPS insurance" was instituted directly because of the ACA.

I agree it's very easy to understand for those of us who have worked in real jobs, have real spouses, real families and live in the real world. Since liberals have never lived in the real world, this whole business thing makes no sense.
Chris Christie 2016

Grand Rapids, MI

#81 Oct 3, 2013
This is clearly a case of a few disrupting the whole system. There are roughly 30 represenatives, or 10% of congress, who are holding this country hostage right now. These 10% represent little pockets of extremely conservative districts. These 10% do not represent a majority of Americans.

There is going to be a showdown in the republican party. Instead of there being moderate and conservative republicans, in the end there will be just moderate ones. The conservative tea party members will say enough is enough and split off and either become independants or try and form a third party. The GOP understands it cannot withstand and will not survive the cancer eating them from within. At the same time the tea partiers will not moderate their stances and come more towards the middle.

As a whole the extreme right will not be a factor in national politics. For the most part they will be stuck in the semi-pros (in congress). They will be seen as the weird high school goth kids huddling in their little packs and secretly plotting against the popular kids but never really doing much harm. They will end up being the party that draws the fringe elements from the GOP; the extreme gun nuts, the secessionists, the militias, the birthers, the anti-immigration reformers, the chickenhawks, the anti-science crowd and the extremeist Bible thumpers. The GOP will be much better off and will gain back some of the respect it has lost over the years.
pipedream

Grand Blanc, MI

#82 Oct 3, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
Try reading the whole article before you post a link that disproves what you are claiming.
I read the whole article. You should go back over it a few more times because YOU still don't comprehend it I KNOW what it says. UPS is simply using the ACA as an EXCUSE to screw over its employees. It mentions the ACA as ONE factor in the UPS decision, not the ONLY factor, nor the MAJOR factor. The biggest factor UPS used involves its own GREED. UPS really doesn't care about its employees. It saw the ACA as an EXCUSE to save money. Like most other companies today, their bottom line is the mighty dollar.

Stick that in your big mouth Wiggley and chew on it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News College football roundup: Ohio State starts the... (Sep '13) 47 min Stewart scott 2,330
Local News Women (Apr '09) 5 hr Alex 2,398
Daane Development towing next to Score Sportsbar Mon Doosh Bagge 1
You Decide Jul 26 You Decide 1
Searching for Richard Painted Horse... Jul 23 Anonymous 1
News New state law enables Holland SmartZone district Jul 23 District 1 1
News Ground broken on Consumers Leadership Center Jul 22 Who 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Grand Rapids Mortgages