|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Sept 21, 2015 17:44:25 GMT -6
Just as I predicted, he did self-destruct. I wonder how much of the Koch
Bros money got wasted on that fiasco. The bad part is that now he will be back spending his time in WI and can do a lot more damage before he exits. We had a WI Supreme Court Judge pass away today and Walker will be able to appoint another right winger.
My other prediction is that Trump will never complete the campaign either. We'll see :-)
Cheers,
Pam
|
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 22, 2015 5:05:23 GMT -6
Pam we don't like the term right winger, we much rather prefer to be called conservative LOL.
Big pool unless your making waves many will get left behind.
Still a lot of time left we shall see who emerges as the front runners.
Funny you talk damage walker has done in the state of WI, when we have a president who has done his share on the national and international level LOL.
|
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 22, 2015 7:05:49 GMT -6
when one looks at jobs and the economy the US vs WI- its no comparison
and HC? best thing that ever happened to this country.
I suggest you look at Walkers record and the state when he took office, and today-
and do the same for the state of the union when Bush left, to today.
|
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Sept 22, 2015 14:30:12 GMT -6
I don't have as strong of a personal dislike for Walker as many do, but I sure don't favor many of his polices and if you are a Conservative and not a "right winger" then I can't see why you would or could support a politician that takes tax payers monies to send financially capable students to private schools and then turn around and borrow money so that road construction can take place. That sure is not less government. Also he approved and signed for using 250 million of tax payer dollars for the Bucks stadium which will take even more monies away from our small, lower valued rural school districts and force them to either cut back more or raise mil rates to provide services. Less government? I would say no.
Removing public unions made him popular, although he did not remove unions from security public employees, but disparaging the UW system, removing 900 million from K-12s, wanting to eliminate the Natural Resources board and the State Ag board along with working to remove science from the DNR have caused many to take a real hard second look.
WI is not far behind WI now in their assessment of Walker's role in saying he wants less government but not the government he wants and he has done very little to lift up private sector business and or job creation. He has created about 150K private sector jobs in about 6 years which is 100K below what he stated he would do in four years and about equal to what was lost in 2007-2009, so really he has us back to where we were 6-7 years ago. If you subtract the several thousand public sector jobs that have been lost and the lower compensation packages of the 150K jobs that have been created in the private sector it is clear to see why we are struggling to even keep up with the average of all of our states and we continue to slide back. Most Conservatives that review data knew that and thus his downward spiral among his supporter. If you can't hold your peers you won't gain many others either.
Bryce
|
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 23, 2015 5:06:58 GMT -6
Tman new report just came out pre AHCA avg Deductable around 300 now post AHCA just over 1000 for out of pocket Deductable. this was suppose to make health care cheaper for the majority.
We went from many jobs that would be FT into many,many more that hold that magical number of less than 28 hrs per week. That way employers do not have to offer health care.
So while yes it has provided some more opportunity overall I think not so great as written, we have more cost, higher deductibles and employers keeping people below the 28 hr weekly avg. which does little except add more cost to all tax payers!
|
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 23, 2015 5:08:31 GMT -6
As far as the state of the Union well I see little REAL difference, yet history will break down Obama effectivness as a 2 term president..........
|
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Sept 23, 2015 11:46:58 GMT -6
There may have been better methods to dig out of the major recession that we suffered 2007-2009 but we all need to be reminded that the current administration did not put us in that recession. There are a lot of Monday AM quarterbacks but when the moment of integrity occurred economic leadership was absent. Absence is one thing but there was knowledge of a huge downturn in late spring of 2008 and the current administration and the GOP candidates (McCain) chose not to relate that information.
Bryce
|
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 23, 2015 15:19:35 GMT -6
Bryce 8 years ago, yes 8 years ago what has happened since Obama has taken office to change much?
Many executive orders in place, AHCA which has not gone as promised and grid lock amongst congress.
Obama as we know now is not and was not what we needed for a president in such times, he has been for the most part ineffective as a leader and knows little about economics that we all know today.
|
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Sept 23, 2015 21:20:48 GMT -6
"... grid lock amongst congress." You're blaming the inability of Repubs to negotiate and/or cooperate on the President? LOL
"..he has been for the most part ineffective as a leader...""
I guess that's all a matter of opinion. Personally I think history will be very kind to President Obama especially for all he got accomplished in spite of legislators whose only goal was to get rid of him.
Cheers,
Pam
|
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Sept 23, 2015 21:22:08 GMT -6
None of those things you mentioned caused the recession. I did relate that there may have been better ways to climb out of the economic mess we were in also.
It is interesting that we choose to highlight things that bug us and not necessarily what are the key factors. We don't yet know how much ACH and other economic initiatives may help or hurt us. We do know however that 2007-2009 really did cost us a lot of money, not only current wages and earnings but future spending with down markets and increased housing costs due to higher initial cost to buy a home due to higher down payments. We also have considerably more education debt as many go in debt to be able to land decent wage earning careers.
Bryce
|
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 24, 2015 5:22:44 GMT -6
Pam the key of any successful president is to get both sides to work together on some key issues and not add to the division this president has done the latter.
Easy to say all republicans fault or all democrats depending on who has control, yet the main goal of a good president is to bring together both sides and move the agenda forward. Being a great mediator would go far as president of the U.S. as it seems common place for Both sides to dig in their heels.
Bryce we do know that AHC has and will continue to limit FT jobs now and in the future, that is a fact unless some things get changed. We are replacing lots of lost jobs with PT employment and adding to the ACH by the regulations put in place. Where I work we have a few retired people they have been told their is a magic number now of hours in a year so they cannot hit the 28 avg as they do not want to have to pay for benefits for PT help. Not in the budget.
|
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 24, 2015 9:21:04 GMT -6
it takes very little to understand the words "we will not work with the president on anything, and will do everything in our power to undermine all he wants to do" and doesn't even take a good memory (just use your computer) to see that boast became true
but it does take someone special to blame the president for those words and actions.
|
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Sept 24, 2015 11:30:29 GMT -6
The trend for less than full time work started 30 years ago when service jobs began to be the big career changes versus manufacturing, labor and construction. So now instead of 32 you say the new rule is 28 OK for you but I don't buy into that like you do. Over time the real value of the health care act will be to separate employment from a job which will be a freeing for workers and less cost to businesses. Sure that cost will be paid somewhere and maybe even some lowered costs over time may well be in the picture. We will watch to see what percent of our GDP will be spent on HC a decade from now compared to today or a decade ago. HC will never be cheap but lowering it as a percent of GDP is good for our citizens. Is the new act really good? probably not but what we had before which was private has been going up in cost and flat lining in service for a long time. Every politician stated our system was broke but very few were determined to work on a change. The Dem's led this initiative and I am not saying all is well but they at least acted on something everyone said needed work. To me it would have been good to have a more private health care approach but when the big players can't decide who should win the lion's share or who should get gored or which politician should get the choice lobby jobs then to me a responsible government should move forward.
Bryce
|
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 24, 2015 15:38:57 GMT -6
No buying Bryce those are the facts the people that work with me and for me had to sign a waiver to decline coverage in order to get more hours! this is fact. They thought is was dumb because they get great benefits from their employers who they retired from so did not need our benefits nor want them.
yet it is against the law to bring up a waiver from the employer so if your smart enough to figure it out and ask for such waiver then you can do more than the 28. it goes of course by number of employees but the 28 hr rule is the new law.
To me that is counter productive no other words to describe such............
In fact it also guarantees more people are or will be on the AHC because of such rule!
|
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Sept 24, 2015 22:08:40 GMT -6
Did not say that 28 hours is not the norm that businesses are using. These were retired workers with plans. The new not retired employees what type of wavers to they need signed if they want to work 40 hours for you? So if an employer does not want to hirer full time workers that is their business and yes I can see why there may have been a change in hours. One way to make the system work better is to include more persons and yes it looks like firms are doing exactly what those who wrote the plan predicted they would do, and that is to lower the hours which saves them wages and benefits. May not be good for middle and lower income workers but then the employers have in many cases worked to lower wage and benefit costs. If employers did not have insurance there would not be those games played about hours, wavers etc. Over time that is what will take place and health care will be about individuals and families and not companies and that will probably be a better long term outcome for millions of citizens.
Bryce
|
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 25, 2015 5:24:39 GMT -6
Bryce you stated it above, over time this will not be about companies? How can it not be, as even the AHC is relying on privatized health care to run and administer the plans for the federal govt?
This was to lower cost will not or has not done such, the deductible amounts since the inception of AHC have gone up.not even stayed close to the same. Some companies are either going to pay higher premiums for those they cover or have to lessen the quality of care for all they cover because cost control simply is not there.
Many will go to the AHC minimum requirements and nothing more, I FEEL this was designed that way to get everyone except congress and the president on the same care plan across the board. This will happen I have little doubt.
|
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 25, 2015 7:02:08 GMT -6
I FEEL you are all wrong, and that the facts do not support your views.
|
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Sept 25, 2015 9:26:14 GMT -6
So now it is all about the companies playing and staying in the game? Several months ago there was much stated about many companies willing to pay the $2,000 penalty to not comply? What changed and when?
Bryce
|
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 25, 2015 18:57:17 GMT -6
What facts Tman?
Bryce they do not need to comply if they keep hours below 28 hrs per week! Again as I stated counter productive to the work force.
Again if you have 100 employees at 2,000 per employee that is 200,000 annually, so they just switch to limiting hours and having a few more people work.
|
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 25, 2015 19:04:00 GMT -6
They are trying a hybrid system, first they want employers to cover the cost then they will take anyone who doesn't have coverage based on income. So someone working less than 28 hrs will qualify got AHC at a reduced rate based on income yet it still cost the govt the same amount to cover someone at 40 without versus someone 27 hrs without.
To me seems silly really...........
|
|
