Progressives tout California Health care "success"

[IDBillzFan]

Unions crush Obama for his embarrassing ACA.

 

The leaders of three major U.S. unions, including the highly influential Teamsters, have sent a scathing open letter to Democratic leaders in Congress, warning that unless changes are made, President Obama’s health care reform plan will “destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.”

 

If that’s not bad enough, the Affordable Care Act, if not modified, will “destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans,” the letter says.

 

You can read the full letter in the link. As I've said many times before, it's impossible to see how any thinking person can be okay with the ACA.

[DC Tom]

Unions crush Obama for his embarrassing ACA.

 

 

 

You can read the full letter in the link. As I've said many times before, it's impossible to see how any thinking person can be okay with the ACA.

 

I can see the administration officials right now, scratching their heads and asking each other "But Obamacare benefits the unions, why are they so angry?"

[IDBillzFan]

I can see the administration officials right now, scratching their heads and asking each other "But Obamacare benefits the unions, why are they so angry?"

 

And their own answer would be, "Well, maybe we didn't do a good enough job explaining it."

[DC Tom]

And their own answer would be, "Well, maybe we didn't do a good enough job explaining it."

 

Quick, get Major League Lacrosse on the phone!

 

It's not their fault, the Republicans obstructed the explanation.

[birdog1960]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/obamacare-study-employer-mandate-may-not-matter-much-but-the-individual-mandate-does-20130716. minimal difference in the number of uninsured and costs if employer mandate delayed. this is really no surprise as most large employers already routinely provide health insurance, a fact all together lost or ignored by opponents of the aca.. so obama's delay on the employer mandate changes little on a practical level. the starting level of uninsured is the most staggering thing here. almost 20% of americans uninsured.

[Doc]

the value of per diem and expert witness work is likely to decrease proportionally to average reimbursement for conventional practice.

Per diem, maybe. But scarcity brings demand. As for expert witness. no way.

[Nanker]

Unions crush Obama for his embarrassing ACA.

 

 

 

You can read the full letter in the link. As I've said many times before, it's impossible to see how any thinking person can be okay with the ACA.

 

But it's supposed to do so much GOOD!

[DC Tom]

http://www.nationalj...e-does-20130716. minimal difference in the number of uninsured and costs if employer mandate delayed. this is really no surprise as most large employers already routinely provide health insurance, a fact all together lost or ignored by opponents of the aca.. so obama's delay on the employer mandate changes little on a practical level. the starting level of uninsured is the most staggering thing here. almost 20% of americans uninsured.

 

Or, to put it another way, the employer mandate not only isn't necessary, but cost of it far outweigh the benefits, making it worse than useless.

 

Once again prompting me to point out: it's **** legislation, no matter what side of the fence you're on.

[birdog1960]

Or, to put it another way, the employer mandate not only isn't necessary, but cost of it far outweigh the benefits, making it worse than useless.

 

Once again prompting me to point out: it's **** legislation, no matter what side of the fence you're on.

except that the 0.1% of the population employed by large co's and not insured will surely not agree with you about its necessity. but when you're talking 50+mil uninsured, what's 100k people or so?

Edited July 16, 2013 by birdog1960

[DC Tom]

except that the 0.1% of the population employed by large co's and not insured will surely not agree with you about its necessity. but when you're talking 50+mil uninsured, what's 100k people or so?

 

Yes, of course. If even one person is taken care of, then it's necessary and bugger all else. Perfectly sound reasoning of the sort that got us this piece of **** legislation to begin with.

[B-Man]

the starting level of uninsured is the most staggering thing here. almost 20% of americans uninsured.

 

Millions by choice, but don't let that stand in the way of promoting the ACA....

 

 

.

.

Edited July 16, 2013 by B-Man

[birdog1960]

Yes, of course. If even one person is taken care of, then it's necessary and bugger all else. Perfectly sound reasoning of the sort that got us this piece of **** legislation to begin with.

nope, not at all. if we can't get single payer, we need to at least require large companies to do the right thing by their employees. yes, priciples matter. and it does have some economic affect in terms of fines expected - several billion dollars. that and aat least 100000 people seem like relevant, meaningful numbers to me. perhaps not to you but i can't fathom why not.

 

Millions by choice, but don't let that stand in the way of promoting the ACA....

 

 

.

.

doesn't matter if by choice or not. the massive number of ininsured results in cost shifting and unaddressed chronic illnesses that get attention when it's too late and/or most expensive. and at what percentage of income is health insurance cost a choice? is a $10000 policy for someone making $40k a real choice?

[IDBillzFan]

doesn't matter if by choice or not. the massive number of ininsured results in cost shifting and unaddressed chronic illnesses that get attention when it's too late and/or most expensive. and at what percentage of income is health insurance cost a choice? is a $10000 policy for someone making $40k a real choice?

 

I gotta hand it to you: when you pick a lost cause, you really stick with it.

[DC Tom]

nope, not at all. if we can't get single payer, we need to at least require large companies to do the right thing by their employees. yes, priciples matter. and it does have some economic affect in terms of fines expected - several billion dollars. that and aat least 100000 people seem like relevant, meaningful numbers to me. perhaps not to you but i can't fathom why not.

 

The bigger question is why does ONE person not seem relevant and meaningful to you.

 

We've established that 100,000 are, and one isn't. What's the magic number where "people" become relevant? 20? 100? 1,000?

[birdog1960]

The bigger question is why does ONE person not seem relevant and meaningful to you.

 

We've established that 100,000 are, and one isn't. What's the magic number where "people" become relevant? 20? 100? 1,000?

no idea...doesn't matter - here were talking about 100000 employed people and we both agree that's relevant.

[DC Tom]

no idea...doesn't matter - here were talking about 100000 employed people and we both agree that's relevant.

 

1) We're not agreeing it's relevant.

 

2) It doesn't matter? You said earlier that principles matter. So why is it that, as a matter of principle, 100,000 people are worth this effort, but one isn't? So what's the magic number where your principles cease to matter? We've already established it's between 100,000 and 1.

 

Or would you rather abandon the "principles" bull **** and talk cost again? Because by the link you provided, and the CBO estimates on the ACA, that tenth of a percent additional coverage eats up about 4% of the cost of the ACA. Which gets right back to the point - you think that so little return on effort is a well-designed piece of legislation?

[birdog1960]

I gotta hand it to you: when you pick a lost cause, you really stick with it.

um, the aca is the law. it's not likely going anywhere soon.

[B-Man]

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/15/obamacare-contractor-under-investigation-in-britain/

 

Obamacare contractor under investigation in Britain

 

The British government has launched an investigation of Serco Group, parent company of the firm recently awarded $1.2 billion to manage key elements of the U.S. health-care law’s rollout.

 

That contract, announced in late June, is among the largest Affordable Care Act grants made so far, expected to cover the hiring of 1,500 workers who will process a wave of health coverage applications.

 

In the United Kingdom, Serco Group reportedly overbilled the government by “tens of millions of pounds” under a contract to monitor offenders on parole and individuals released on bail, according to an audit conducted by the country’s Justice Ministry.

 

The British government plans to review all of its contracts with the U.K.-based firm and put on hold a separate contract Serco had secured with the country’s prison system.

 

{snip}

 

the audit will not affect Serco Inc., the Reston-based branch of the global firm that won the health-law contract, according to spokesman Alan Hill. The global Serco Group has said it will comply with the British investigation.

 

 

 

 

“We’re moving forward with the contract,” Hill said. “We’ve got a tight deadline to get everybody trained and do all the testing.”

 

Hill said there is a “firewall” between the American arm of the company, which often handles sensitive government information, and its overseas parent. “When a foreign entity is involved, I think that means that U.S. interests are protected,” he said.

[birdog1960]

1) We're not agreeing it's relevant.

 

2) It doesn't matter? You said earlier that principles matter. So why is it that, as a matter of principle, 100,000 people are worth this effort, but one isn't? So what's the magic number where your principles cease to matter? We've already established it's between 100,000 and 1.

 

Or would you rather abandon the "principles" bull **** and talk cost again? Because by the link you provided, and the CBO estimates on the ACA, that tenth of a percent additional coverage eats up about 4% of the cost of the ACA. Which gets right back to the point - you think that so little return on effort is a well-designed piece of legislation?

let's define relevant. 1 person is not politically relevant unless that person is trayvon martin or george zimmerman. 1 person without health insurance that cannot afford necessary care is morally relevant. but it's not politically feasible to craft legislation around that 1 person. so, yes 1 person is morally relevant but 100000 are politically relevant. Edited July 16, 2013 by birdog1960

[Nanker]

1) We're not agreeing it's relevant.

 

2) It doesn't matter? You said earlier that principles matter. So why is it that, as a matter of principle, 100,000 people are worth this effort, but one isn't? So what's the magic number where your principles cease to matter? We've already established it's between 100,000 and 1.

 

Or would you rather abandon the "principles" bull **** and talk cost again? Because by the link you provided, and the CBO estimates on the ACA, that tenth of a percent additional coverage eats up about 4% of the cost of the ACA. Which gets right back to the point - you think that so little return on effort is a well-designed piece of legislation?

You must crack some eggs to make an omelet!