Posts by Marvin Shilmer

369

So are Republicans now openly terrorists?

by Simon in

they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..

Marvin Shilmer

-

“So, even if a monthly premium rises, have your healthcare costs really risen if you get better coverage? Hard to judge ... once you get beyond the fear mongering and FUD there will be some winners and some losers and then some less obvious winners and losers away from the headlines.”

Politics aside, I think the biggest gripes that will emerge from this whole episode in US society is that 1) the middle class will end up paying higher insurance premiums for the same care they were already receiving and 2) young people will be coerced into paying for insurance they don’t want, and in each of these cases the reason for increased cost will be the same: to subsidize insurance for other people that previously they were not required to subsidize.

The overall cost of healthcare is not going down. It’s just a matter of who pays for it and when.

“It will take time to perfect any new, large system. What is not going to help anyone is trying to repeal reform before it's even had a chance to change anything and trying to shoot the economy in the knee caps as a form of retribution because people thought the umpa-lumpa wouldn't make a good president.”

I’m all for healthcare reform. Whether the ACA is a success is yet to be determined. But I see strong headwinds that have nothing to do with Democratic or Republican noise and everything to do with plain ole fashioned human nature.

As for the current stalemate in DC, I think all of them are losers. We need doctors, policemen, carpenters and plumbers in congress rather than having it packed full of lawyers. Any time you have a profession writing their own rules you end up with trouble. In our case we have lawyers passing laws the citizenry will have to turn around and hire lawyers to explain and help them navigate. On legal matters there is only one lawyer I trust implicitly, and that’s the one that’s paid by me to be on my side at any given time. Even then I question their expertise.

Marvin Shilmer

369

So are Republicans now openly terrorists?

by Simon in

they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..

Marvin Shilmer

-

“How much can you currently deduct for the medical insurance the corp. pays for.”

Designs,

What a company pays toward health insurance premiums for employees is typically treated as a pre-tax expense. Hence there is no corporate tax because the corporation is not making money with this movement of capital.

Consumers pay for corporate expense, just like they pay for corporate taxes.

In the end, anything that affects a corporation’s financial wherewithal is paid for by consumers.

Does that answer your question?

Marvin Shilmer

369

So are Republicans now openly terrorists?

by Simon in

they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..

Marvin Shilmer

-

“I would also like to see some supporting information for Marvin's claims”

Berengaria,

Okay. Let’s start with my first item:

- "Affordable" under the ACA is defined so that what many companies have historically offered employees as a benefit is, by comparison, very generous. The exchanges set up by the Federal government is a place employers can send employees to show how generous previous plans have been. But that was then. Now we have the ACA. Based on "affordable" under the ACA I predict a lot of companies will change the benefit they offer employees so that more of the cost is shifted to the employee and away from the employer.

Under ACA “affordable” means no more than 9-1/2% of monthly net income (essentially, take home pay).

Let’s assume the worst, that an employee is earning $10.50 per hour and has 18% percent of earnings withheld for local, state and federal taxes. For an average month of 170 hours the net income is $1,464. 9-1/2% of $1,464 is $139.

What does this mean? It means that under ACA individual coverage for this employee is deemed “affordable” if cost to the employee is no more than $139 per month.

Competitive geographic areas of my companies the typical benefit offered by employers is to pay the full premium for individual coverage. Some companies impose a monthly administrative fee for participation with a net effect that some of the premium cost is shifted to the employee. In my competitive geographic areas the range of this fee runs from $0 to $50. In real terms this means employees are paying between $0 and $50 for premiums that average about $250.

But under ACA “affordable” would mean these companies can have their lowest wage earners (in my CGA that’s $10.50 per hour) pay as much as $139 per month for their coverage (rather than $0 to $50 per month) and comply with “affordable”. Because this insurance meets “affordable” the healthcare exchanges steer employees shopping at these marketplaces back to their employer’s plan.

Does that answer your question?

Marvin Shilmer

369

So are Republicans now openly terrorists?

by Simon in

they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..

Marvin Shilmer

-

“How will this change affect your corporate taxes.”

The best answer I can give to this questions is, I don’t know for sure at this moment.

But here is something I do know: Privately held companies are not in business to lose money, and if they do end up losing they’ll cease to exist if they don’t change it and change it right quick.

So, corporate tax? It’s an expense. Whatever occurs with corporate tax is something that will end up being passed on to consumers as a cost of doing business. You will pay my corporate taxes. That’s who’s always paid it.

Does that answer your question?

Marvin Shilmer

369

So are Republicans now openly terrorists?

by Simon in

they seem determined to undermine the us democracy and shut the government down hurting employees and veterans.. what a despicable bunch, hope they get their asses kicked for what they are doing..

Marvin Shilmer

-

In recent weeks my time has been consumed working through the ACA. I've spent tons of money on lawyers and spent countless hours with insurance company reps. All in an attempt to navigate my companies through the new land of healthcare insurance.

I've learned some interesting things leading me to conclude that a lot of people are going to be really upset once they realize what this is going to cost them.

Things I've learned:

- "Affordable" under the ACA is defined so that what many companies have historically offered employees as a benefit is, by comparison, very generous. The exchanges set up by the Federal government is a place employers can send employees to show how generous previous plans have been. But that was then. Now we have the ACA. Based on "affordable" under the ACA I predict a lot of companies will change the benefit they offer employees so that more of the cost is shifted to the employee and away from the employer.

- Though businesses offering health care insurance must offer dependent coverage, there is no requirement to make this coverage "affordable" by a company offer to cover part of the premium costs. When employees go to the health care exchange they'll get sticker shock at what the premium is going to cost them. Employers can offer very little in the way cost-sharing for dependent coverage and make it less costly than the exchange, which will steer employees back to the company's plan. Bottom line is that employees will be paying a lot more for dependent coverage.

- Based on how the ACA treats smoking and smokers, it will become much, much easier for companies to shift premium costs to employees who are smokers. Smokers better gird up their loins. They're about to meet Mr. Premium in ways they never did before. Alternately, smokers can successfully complete a cessation program. I'm sure that'll work. Right?

I'm not a die-hard Republican, but I am a fiscal conservative. I believe in working hard and paying my way. I believe in helping people who are unable to work hard and unable to pay their way as a result. I don't believe in paying out of my pocket for my neighbor to live like I do, and vice versa.

Politicians frustrate me. I like ideas from both sides of the proverbial aisle. It's true that the ACA was legally passed. It's also true that what's going on right now in DC is legal. Because Obama was re-elected does not mean other duly elected representatives have no duty to constituents. The United States is a republic. All elected officials have a duty to represent the interest of their constituents. Separation of powers under the US Constitution places an additional burden on representatives. All elected officials (including the President) have a duty to find compromises that can survive the litany of hurdles the US Constitution establishes. I emphasize that all elected officials have this burden.

I predict that a lot of people are going to get really pissed off about what health care insurance premiums are going to cost them.

I predict that a lot of people are going to get really pissed off when they find out what is covered by "affordable" health care insurance.

We'll see.

Marvin Shilmer

80

Missionaries to vacate all missionary homes

by seenitall in

jw
friends

latest news from a source (missionary in foreign land):.

no more missionary homes anywhere in the world.. all missionaries presently in missionary homes must vacate.

must get housing on your own / from the locals.. circuit and district overseers have moved into many of these former missionary homes.. reasons: liability, cost savings, real estate to be sold or used for other purposes.. needless to say, many of these longtime servants are very unsettled.

Marvin Shilmer

-

“Even selling property is a one shot deal rather than an annual source of cash.”

My gut tells me Watchtower has a chip in the futures of at least some of its Brooklyn properties. I would not surprise me one bit if Watchtower held a financial stake in some of the companies purchasing Watchtower properties. It would also not surprise me if some of the contracts included language about revenue sharing based on future use.

Marvin Shilmer

38

Terry's book: I WEPT BY THE RIVERS OF BABYLON

by tec in

jw
friends

i just finished reading this book, by our terry, and i thorougly enjoyed it.

terry has an amazing gift for words and expression - as most of you already know - and he lured me in from the very start.

reading this book is an actual experience... and i don't want to say much more than that, because i don't want to color your experience as you read for yourself.. .

Marvin Shilmer

Terry,

Thanks for writing this book. It testifies to details other writers have overlooked. Keep up the good work!

Marvin Shilmer

36

New Awake magazine goes after the media

by cedars in

jw
friends

here is a link to the pdf.... http://www.jw.org/download/?issue=201312&output=html&pub=g&fileformat=pdf&alllangs=0&langwritten=e&txtcmslang=e&isbible=0.

some interesting quotes.... while it is wise not to believe everything we read in the news, it does not follow that there is nothing we can trust.

the key may be to have a healthy skepticism, while keeping an open mind.tone: when the tone of a news item is angry, spiteful, or highly critical, it suggests that an attack is under way and not a reasoned argument.sources: is there evidence of thorough research?

Marvin Shilmer

-

It’s embarrassing to see Watchtower write claptrap like that when its own writers have been known to publish flat-out falsehoods. Watchtower is guilty of every violation it cites!

See more of Watchtower’s shameless self-promotion in Accuracy and Watchtower's Writing Department available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2013/03/accuracy-and-watchtowers-writing.html

Marvin Shilmer

18

Why do you think they changed their mind on organ transplants?

by Separation of Powers in

from 1967 to early 1980, the watchtower stated that organ transplants were tantamount to "cannibalism.

" then, suddenly, the position was changed to organ transplants being a "conscience matter.

" so, my question, why the change?

Marvin Shilmer

-

“They thoroughly understand the mistake they have made with blood and realized they were doing it again. They're not stupid, just heartless.”

TD could not have said it more accurately.

The Watchtower organization had a growing epidemic of death on its hands. Public relations was about to become uncontrollable.

JW patients were dying by the thousands over the blood issue. More JW patients were dying over the organ transplant issue. Worse, lots of children were dying, and mothers the result of childbirth complications.

The number of deaths was always staggering. But because these deaths were scattered rather evenly throughout the world the statistic was not realized for what it represented. In effect, the numbers were hidden from plain view. But the numbers were growing and growing fast.

So what did Watchtower do?

Under the guise of “minor components” and, later on, “fractions” the Watchtower organization began allowing more and more blood products to be accepted by JWs. The effect was to reduce the number and rate of deaths, or at the very least to shift blame for deaths from Watchtower to the individual JW who Watchtower had granted more latitude for personal decision.

Watchtower got rid of its organ transplant taboo at the same time. Again, to reduce the number and rate of deaths due to its teaching and doctrinal position.

All this was done to reduce exposure and make it more palatable for Watchtower representatives to inform the medical and legal community of its doctrinal position, and to reduce risk of backlash due to the public waking up to the numbers of JWs needlessly suffering premature death. When organ transplantation crept from experimental to clinical practice it became indefensible to claim transplantation was “eating” an organ. So Watchtower got rid of this absurd idea in relation to solid organ transplants.

I’ve written a little about this subject at my blog. (See Watchtower on Taking In Meatavailable at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2012/12/watchtower-on-taking-in-meat.html

My menu of future articles includes sharing more documented research on why Watchtower dismantled its pre-1980 teaching against organ transplantation.

Marvin Shilmer

14

who signed your blood card?

by losingit in

jw
friends

two elders in my congregation signed mine bc hubby couldn't bear the repercussions of either 1- saving my life by allowing the blood transfusion, which would probably lead to him being df'd, and 2- me dying bc he did not allow the blood transfusion and having my parents call him a murderer.. isn't that so nice?

when i most wanted him to represent me, he didn't have the guts, even hypothetically.... so, who signed your blood card?.

Marvin Shilmer

-

“When querying it, the elders said I should cross out and initial that section if I didn't agree with it. LOL, I thought to myself, there would be so little original print by the time I'd I finished crossing out the parts I didn't agree with!”

I knew a ministerial servant who photoshoped his death document into a life document. Because elders never read these things they never realized they were signing a document contrary to Watchtower doctrine.

In my years I lost track of the number of elders (not to mention others) who came to me with these asinine Watchtower documents asking me how to complete the documents and what they should opt for. Each one repeated the same mantra in other words:

“I want to accept anything I can, and I want your help to make sure I’m not leaving anything out.”

How’s that for conviction?

Marvin Shilmer