OK Health Care Freedom Amendment, State Question 756

WMCOL wrote:

Instead of blaming Obama why don't we try to find ways to make affordable care more equitable and just for all?

do you Even know what equal is

DustyOutlaw wrote:

<quoted text>
You bubba. Subtract 2,000.00 from 7,5000 and the difference would be what? About a 5,500.00 net gain for the employer to refuse health care to an employee. Right? BTW nice pig you have there. Family or just dating?

What a ridiculous petty post! Normal for you?

WMCOL wrote:

<quoted text>
==========
In Oklahoma's case Obamacare funding will come from the federal kittty, other states will pay their own way. There are still only three ways of financing to see to the needs of the General Welfare of the nation and they are taxes, fees, and fines.

There could be 2,000 ways to finance health care and Oklahoma knows of only one. Go sniveling to Washington and begging for mo money, mo money, mo money. Then bitch about spending.

TAMARA wrote:

<quoted text>Will Dusty Boy cut and paste a prove what I said was wrong.
Now so everyone knows and Dusty does not have to keep repeating this over and over. I was born in Oklahoma left Oklahoma before I was a year old. Move back to Okla. 1960. Married and had 3 boys. And yes my husband was an insurance agent that sold property and auto insurance. He did not sell health insurance! We went out on the open market and bought our health insurance just like people that buy their own. Which if you work for a company like most do you get it thru your job and most never pay the full amount of the premium. Now Dusty Boy grow up!

Boy for someone that claims to know something it amazes me that you will claim you "went to the open market" and bought health insurance when Oklahoma is locked up tighter than a jug with the monopoly of Blue Cross.

TAMARA wrote:

<quoted text>Hey STUPID stating facts are not arguing or disagreeing!. So OLD MAN and I mean being 5 years younger than me does not make you a spring chicken. It just goes to show you want to argue with me over ever little thing I post. YOU are BORING!

As a very young man I saw my great grandmother acting just about like you act and I swore to myself I would never be the close minded, bigoted bitch that she was. I may be old in body but I'll never grow old in mind. Like you.

WMCOL wrote:

<quoted text>
==========
Funny how you never know what are credible facts.
The penalty proposed for not having healthcare is $695 per person but not more than $2,085.

We were talking about employer's fine not what a "person" would be charged to violate the mandatory insurance requirement. Do you always try to cover your mistakes by muddying the water?

TAMARA wrote:

<quoted text>I was not arguing whether Obamacare was a good or bad thing for empolyee or employer. I stated the fact that in some cases if employers do the right thing they will provide health ins.

quoted text>. Hey after its in effect and people lose the jobs but they still have "obama çare" who's gonna buy the electricity for them.who's gonna foot that car payment? Who's gonna buy my baby new shoes when she outgrows them? Not "obama care"

duh wrote:

<quoted text>do you Even know what equal is

==========
I didn't say anything about equal. I said equitable. Learn the difference.

Dana wrote:

<quoted text>
We were talking about employer's fine not what a "person" would be charged to violate the mandatory insurance requirement. Do you always try to cover your mistakes by muddying the water?

==========
Employer fine and charge are the same thing. It is cost of doing business and for company or individual the amount of fine and charge is not an incentive to get insurance. Read the posts, it was layed out for you, twice. Are you really that opaque? You must be.

Dusty, you gotta admit though, that Tamara makes more sense than most of her hick brothers and sisters on here. They are about as clueless as it gets.

WMCOL wrote:

<quoted text>
==========
No, Okieabroad indicated Obamacare would be a good thing and you said to her, "So from what you are saying I donot think our Obamacare will be like what you are talking", but as it is now you would be wrong.

My comment was not saying Obamacare was wrong but that it was not like what OlkieAbroad had and that she was wrong. She said that where she live that country's healthcare system took care of everyone and that none of the employers provided health insurance and everyone there paid their own way for government healthcare.

DustyOutlaw wrote:

<quoted text>
Boy for someone that claims to know something it amazes me that you will claim you "went to the open market" and bought health insurance when Oklahoma is locked up tighter than a jug with the monopoly of Blue Cross.

I was talking before Medicare! Before Medicare when we did shop and buy our own health ins. BCBS would not take me. This was long before we found out my husband had canser. They not insure me because I had an accident that broke my nose and caused me to have sinus surgery and that same accident damaged disk in my neck and had to have surgery for that. You do know there are more than BCBS for health ins.?

TAMARA wrote:

<quoted text>My comment was not saying Obamacare was wrong but that it was not like what OlkieAbroad had and that she was wrong. She said that where she live that country's healthcare system took care of everyone and that none of the employers provided health insurance and everyone there paid their own way for government healthcare.

==========
Her point to you was that Obamacare would not cost employers more---as you seemed to think, but might even cost them less.

DustyOutlaw wrote:

<quoted text>
Boy for someone that claims to know something it amazes me that you will claim you "went to the open market" and bought health insurance when Oklahoma is locked up tighter than a jug with the monopoly of Blue Cross.

You can buy other health ins. besides BCBS here in Oklahoma. Dusty your statements amazes me. You are so bent on putting Oklahoma down and telling me what an old bat I am that you are sounding out right stupid! Also the health ins. we had when my husband fought his high stage 3 colon cancer was not BCBS or MEDICARE! But that company could not have done any better in paying the bills. The only thing that could have been better was if the premium was not so high.

WMCOL wrote:

<quoted text>
==========
Her point to you was that Obamacare would not cost employers more---as you seemed to think, but might even cost them less.

No that was not her point. Go back and read her first post on the subject about taken the burden of the employers and my post of asking how and her answer was the the government would be supplying the health ins. and in her country no employer supplies their employees with health ins. that everyone is covered by the government health plan and everyone provides for their own healthcare government ins.

WMCOL:

Here are the post I referred to!

Oklie...POST 34359

Mine post 34362

Oklie..POST 34410

Undoubtly you and I read Oklie's post differenly!

TAMARA wrote:

WMCOL:
Here are the post I referred to!
Oklie...POST 34359
Mine post 34362
Oklie..POST 34410
Undoubtly you and I read Oklie's post differenly!

==========
Here are the posts where you said she was wrong. She said companies do not pay or subsidize workers because it would be double insuring.

OkieAbroad wrote:

<quoted text>
Tamara,
My source is my common sense. The whole entire purpose of any health care system is to make health care insurance affordable and legally the responsibility of the individual. I live in the Dutch health care system, which is what Obama said he used to model his health care plan. Companies here do not pay and have no reason to pay or subsidize health insurance for their workers, because every individual here has to pay their own insurance.(people taking responsibility for themselves) Lower income families here get their health insurance subsidized by the government. Companies pay NOTHING.
Do YOU have information on Obama's healthcare plan that states otherwise?? Then I would be interested in seeing that because it makes no sense to me that companies would have to DOUBLE insure their workers.[quote/]

YOU RESPONDED saying you don't think Obamacare will be like that:

>>>Obama's health care plan will include the employers with a certain total of employees working for the to provide health insurance for their employees. If the employer does not then they will be fined so much each year they do not just like any individual that does not carry health insurance.. The way it stands now the government will not be the total health insurance carrier. You will be able to get health insurance thru private health insurance companies. About all the Obamacare really did as it stands now is make it illegal not to have health insurance. If you are in a certain income bracket you will get help pay for it or be put on the medicaid program. One good thing is no one can be turn down for health ins. because of pre-existing conditions. if you go to Obama Health care.gov . So from what you are saying I donot think our Obamacare will be like what you are talking about.<<<

WMCOL wrote:

<quoted text>
==========
Employer fine and charge are the same thing. It is cost of doing business and for company or individual the amount of fine and charge is not an incentive to get insurance. Read the posts, it was layed out for you, twice. Are you really that opaque? You must be.

Hello? You are the one giving facts and figures that are incorrect and misleading. The individual fees are different than a employer failing to provide insurances to employees. So you need to read your own posts again before you start lecturing every one on this thread.

Your still an arrogrant,self-righteous,self- serving ass.

TAMARA wrote:

WMCOL:
Here are the post I referred to!
Oklie...POST 34359
Mine post 34362
Oklie..POST 34410
Undoubtly you and I read Oklie's post differenly!

==========
Another thing you are doing here is ignoring the explanations and clarifications that came after the above posts, which you asked for. So you ask someone what they mean, and they tell you, and you ignore the very thing you asked for and received?

Dana wrote:

<quoted text>
Hello? You are the one giving facts and figures that are incorrect and misleading. The individual fees are different than a employer failing to provide insurances to employees. So you need to read your own posts again before you start lecturing every one on this thread.
Your still an arrogrant,self-righteous,self- serving ass.

==========
There is NOTHING "misleading" about facts that show employers are much better off rejecting insuring their employees and paying a penalty instead. If you want to get specific with actual numbers, which are estimates at his point, your $2000 figure is incorrect too, but any figure used still shows the point being made that employers are much better off, just like healthy individuals, to reject Obamacare and pay a penalty. That's what you have to get off of you, and you can't.