President Trump reveals his new "America First" Health Care plan... another YUUUGE WIN

[thedangerouskitchen]

Highlights:

- Pre-existing conditions WILL be covered per Executive Order just signed (Democrats RUINED!!)

- Monthly premiums will be tax deductible

- Doctors/hospitals must post all health care pricing online, so Americans can price-shop for the lowest costs

- Significant reductions in prescription drug prices

Lots AND lots more from the GOAT President Trump and his mission to Make America Healthy Again!!

(PS... at Ovomit Care!!)

((PSS: There's still time to jump to the Winning side on the Trump Train!!))

Fast forward to the 39-minute mark for all the details:

[youtube]F-jUuM_uHFU[/youtube]

[Shill Jackson]

So, nothing that has been codified into law.
Just lip service that will result in nothing but the Con status quo - exponential growth in healthcare costs.

The U.S. doesn’t regulate drug pricing, and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services — the largest single customer for many drug companies — is legally forbidden from haggling down the prices of its purchases.

There is no free market driving down prices in US healthcare.

[AlaskaHawks]

Happy day for you and your Domestic Partner.

[elartman1973]

Lol at more bullshit talk and no action..so conveniently before election time
.....op is so fucking gullible and stupid and doesnt even know whats going on

[Uncontroversial]

Sounds exactly like Obamacare. What was the GOP crying about regarding Obamacare? Now they wanna do the same thing

But we all know Obama was THE president that make healthcare available to those with preexisting conditions. Legend

[Kingcarl24]

As long as they change back the definition of a full time employee to someone that works 40 hours a week instead of 30 hours a week.

[AbeVigodaLive]

As long as they change back the definition of a full time employee to someone that works 40 hours a week instead of 30 hours a week.

Why?

[Kingcarl24]

As long as they change back the definition of a full time employee to someone that works 40 hours a week instead of 30 hours a week.

Why?

Causes a lot of problems for me as an HR person. We had a lot of employees working around 30 hours a week that we had to cut back on hours because we couldn’t afford to give them all benefits.

[AbeVigodaLive]

As long as they change back the definition of a full time employee to someone that works 40 hours a week instead of 30 hours a week.

Why?

Causes a lot of problems for me as an HR person. We had a lot of employees working around 30 hours a week that we had to cut back on hours because we couldn’t afford to give them all benefits.

Ok. Kinda figured it was work related

[Shill Jackson]

As long as they change back the definition of a full time employee to someone that works 40 hours a week instead of 30 hours a week.

Why?

Causes a lot of problems for me as an HR person. We had a lot of employees working around 30 hours a week that we had to cut back on hours because we couldn’t afford to give them all benefits.

I realize that it’s just a company maximizing their benefit, based on the rules, but keeping people at 30 hours long term, getting most of a work week out of them, but not giving them full benefits is a bit cheesy.
Don’t get me wrong, my company has them too, but limited. Ours are only interns, and can only be at the 28 hours for a year or less. For us, it’s like a long-term interview. The good ones generally get hired full time.
We have a strong union which keeps that strategy from being exploited.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Why?

Causes a lot of problems for me as an HR person. We had a lot of employees working around 30 hours a week that we had to cut back on hours because we couldn’t afford to give them all benefits.

I realize that it’s just a company maximizing their benefit, based on the rules, but keeping people at 30 hours long term, getting most of a work week out of them, but not giving them full benefits is a bit cheesy.
Don’t get me wrong, my company has them too, but limited. Ours are only interns, and can only be at the 28 hours for a year or less. For us, it’s like a long-term interview. The good ones generally get hired full time.
We have a strong union which keeps that strategy from being exploited.

I gotta agree. Kinda sad to know Karl is working for The Man.

Healthcare costs are already ridiculous without the rank-and-file employees at Corporate America also relishing sticking it to employees.

[Kingcarl24]

They are more than free to apply to any full time position.

Many choose and apply to those 3/4 time positions knowing they don’t have medical benefits. They do it because they don’t want to have to work 40+ hours a week. Why should they get the same benefits as the full time employees?

I don’t agree at all. Benefits are expensive and if we were required to give them to all employees both part time and full, there would have to be major layoffs. We simply couldn’t afford it.

[AbeVigodaLive]

They are more than free to apply to any full time position.

Many choose and apply to those 3/4 time positions knowing they don’t have medical benefits. They do it because they don’t want to have to work 40+ hours a week. Why should they get the same benefits as the full time employees?

I don’t agree at all. Benefits are expensive and if we were required to give them to all employees both part time and full, there would have to be major layoffs. We simply couldn’t afford it.

They do get paid approximately 25% (or more) less than those 40-hour workers, right?

Is it fair to have them work 29 hours with 0% coverage? Or, are there tiers for them... partial coverage, something like that?

[Kingcarl24]

They are more than free to apply to any full time position.

Many choose and apply to those 3/4 time positions knowing they don’t have medical benefits. They do it because they don’t want to have to work 40+ hours a week. Why should they get the same benefits as the full time employees?

I don’t agree at all. Benefits are expensive and if we were required to give them to all employees both part time and full, there would have to be major layoffs. We simply couldn’t afford it.

They do get paid approximately 25% (or more) less than those 40-hour workers, right?

Is it fair to have them work 29 hours with 0% coverage? Or, are there tiers for them... partial coverage, something like that?

They are eligible for some retirement benefits. They are paid the same hourly but work less hours.

Again, there are full time positions to apply to if they want benefits. No one is forcing them to work only 28 hours a week.

[LNS]

I gotta agree with Carl here. If you want the full benefits then you need to put in the time, especially if it’s an option to do so. If these workers were being denied the opportunity to work 40 hours then that’d be one thing, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

What’s the problem, comrade Abe?

[Uncontroversial]

Companies shouldn’t provide any of these benefits whatsoever. Just pay them more and let them choose which benefits they want, if any, and purchase it themselves

[thedangerouskitchen]

As long as they change back the definition of a full time employee to someone that works 40 hours a week instead of 30 hours a week.

Why?

Causes a lot of problems for me as an HR person. We had a lot of employees working around 30 hours a week that we had to cut back on hours because we couldn’t afford to give them all benefits.

If what Trump says (about his plan) is correct, your company won't have that problem anymore.

[thedangerouskitchen]

So, nothing that has been codified into law.
Just lip service that will result in nothing but the Con status quo

He signed three (3) Executive Orders yesterday... including one that will "affirm it is the official policy of the United States government to protect patients with preexisting conditions, so we’re making that official”

... that way President Trump can (once again) expose all you liars on the Left who keep saying he's trying to eliminate the pre-existing condition clause.

https://nypost.com/2020/09/24/trump-unv ... onditions/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Who is the Lefty Liberal/Democrats' WORST nightmare, you ask???

Go on... say his name!!!