Requirement in health law threatens volunteer firefighting system predominant in rural America

  • Article by: ALANNA DURKIN , Associated Press
  • Updated: January 5, 2014 - 12:10 PM

FREEPORT, Maine — Fire chiefs and lawmakers are working to protect the system of volunteer firefighting that has served rural America for more than a century but is threatened by an ambiguity in President Barack Obama's health care law.

  • 45
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
saintnickJan. 5, 1410:45 AM

Oops! Well, these things happen when you ram through a massive bill without reading or understanding it. Thanks Obama and the dems!

52
33
idiocracy2uJan. 5, 1411:34 AM

If people would only realize Obama's signature legislation was not meant to fix anything. All of the issues being experienced are by design. People will be so fed up with the issues created by GOVERNMENT, that they will demand an answer. Imagine that, GOVERNMENT to the rescue with another POS that moves everything closer to single payer for US, while the elites keep their own healthcare. Yet, a majority of people are either too stupid or apathetic to care. You will never realize until it happens. Then it is too late. Good luck, you will need it.

38
21
drichmnJan. 5, 1412:18 PM

"He expects he'll have to provide coverage for the five firefighters he employs part time."... well he's wrong. He isn't required to provide coverage for 5 people.

"Most volunteers also receive insurance coverage through their primary work as teachers, business professionals or city employees." ... then there is no problem at all. They are already covered.

What this really is about is them not understanding the law.

42
30
plizzoJan. 5, 1412:29 PM

The tentacles of Democrat stupidity are reaching into every corner of our lives, even where never predicted. Remember: Democrat and liberal left hero former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said we must pass the law to find out what is in it.

48
31
russ999Jan. 5, 1412:46 PM

when Bush's Medicare Part D had lots of roll out issues and unintended consequences both sides worked together to fix the problems.

As the Washington Post reported in January 2006: [Two weeks into the new Medicare prescription drug program, many of the nation's sickest and poorest elderly and disabled people are being turned away or overcharged at pharmacies, prompting more than a dozen states to declare health emergencies and pay for their life-saving medicines.

Computer glitches, overloaded telephone lines and poorly trained pharmacists are being blamed for mix-ups that have resulted in the worst of unintended consequences: As many as 6.4 million low-income seniors, who until Dec. 31 received their medications free, suddenly find themselves navigating an insurance maze of large deductibles, co-payments and outright denial of coverage.]

30
9
drichmnJan. 5, 1412:51 PM

" Remember: Democrat and liberal left hero former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said we must pass the law to find out what is in it." ... apparently a whole lot of people still don't know what's in it if they think they have to provide insurance for 5 people.

32
19
tmrichardsonJan. 5, 1412:53 PM

This is something that is easily fixed--IF legislators want to. I'm not talking democrats--but republicans here. Coupled with the fact that all federal legislators spend much more time raising money than representing us and the crippling partisanship that prevents anything from getting done--republicans have demonstrated they are very good at screaming foul but doing all they can to avoid voting on such necessary improvements so they can continue to cry foul right up to election day.

23
15
saintnickJan. 5, 14 1:12 PM

drichmn, Why oh why can't you just admit the obvious? It's IN THE LAW. Obamacare was rammed through without reading, understanding, and disecting the negative ramifications. There have been all kinds of delays, exemptions, and blame from Obama the dems, and you Obama voters. You OWN this mess. It's all YOU. What a disaster. You should be embarrassed.

30
28
jbpaperJan. 5, 14 2:27 PM

drichmn: ""He expects he'll have to provide coverage for the five firefighters he employs part time."... well he's wrong. He isn't required to provide coverage for 5 people."----- In your haste to defend this you are wrong again. For starters, there are only 5 part time firefighters but there is about additional 50 volunteer firefighters putting the total at about 55. If that isn't enough for you, keep in mind they are all employed by the city which has other employees such as public works and police officers.

22
11
tooty123Jan. 5, 14 2:40 PM

"It's IN THE LAW." No, it isn't! They do not have to offer insurance for companies under 50 employees! They can go on the exchanges and receive health coverage. So, THEY did read or understand the law! You would think that 4 years would be enough time for them to read a law that might, and I mean might, affect them!

12
14

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT