boyst Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Well at work today two coworkers compared the ACA to Bush, Iraq and WMD's. That was awkward.
B-Man Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Hmmmm, doesn't look like me................lol
meazza Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/02/11/kirsten_powers_im_tired_of_having_to_defend_this_president_and_obamacare.html
Vark Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 http://www.realclear..._obamacare.html Followed your link and found this too http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/02/11/the-insiders-obamacare-creates-new-ways-to-prosecute-american-business/
Keukasmallies Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 That is so unbelievably dumb, I want to see it from a source other than FoxSnooze. So, by now, you've seen it from other news sources. Haven't you learned yet that the absurd is common fare for this administration?
Nanker Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Mandatory hiring could be next. Heaven's NO, you RACIST! Haven't you learned anything? Jobs are slavery. The beauty of Obamacare is that it's freed people from the chains of bondage that is the workplace - that same vile place where evil owners steal from their slaves to make themselves rich beyond what they have a right to be. Now repeat 100 times: Unemployment is good. Employment is bad.
meazza Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Followed your link and found this too http://www.washingto...rican-business/ I just have a thing for Kirsten Powers.
B-Man Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) Followed your link and found this too http://www.washingto...rican-business/ From the Washington Post article: This president doesn’t just selectively enforce the law as he sees fit; now he is actually inventing new crimes. It’s jaw-dropping that if you fall below 100 employees, the burden will be on you to prove that you meant no disrespect to Obamacare. I can’t wait to see the video of the first Democrat who tries to defend this new threat of prosecution within Obamacare. In fact, look for the White House to fix this and somehow drop this provision altogether. It’s completely indefensible. Edited February 12, 2014 by B-Man
DC Tom Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 So, by now, you've seen it from other news sources. Haven't you learned yet that the absurd is common fare for this administration? Every story I've seen tracks back to the original FoxSnooze story.
IDBillzFan Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Every story I've seen tracks back to the original FoxSnooze story. I was having the same problem. Heritage goes deeper here. The final rules now states that employers with 100 or more full-time workers will be held to the mandate in 2015 but that it will be gradually phased in. According to the Treasury fact sheet:“To avoid a payment for failing to offer health coverage, employers need to offer coverage to 70 percent of their full-time employees in 2015 and 95 percent in 2016 and beyond, helping employers that, for example, may offer coverage to employees with 35 or more hours, but not yet to that fraction of their employees who work 30 to 34 hours. “ However, those with at least 50 full-time employees but fewer than 100 full-time employees won’t be subject to the mandate until 2016 if they meet certain eligibility conditions (Pages 123-125), which include: No layoffs or cutting hours because of Obamacare. “During the period beginning on February 9, 2014, and ending on December 31, 2014, the employer does not reduce the size of its workforce or the overall hours of service of its employees in order to satisfy the workforce size condition set.” (emphasis added) The rules states that employers can still reduce their workforce or employees’ hours for “bona fide business reasons.” An example given is “changes in the economic marketplace in which the employer operates.” Translation: the employer can still adjust hours and employment as long as they don’t blame Obamacare for the changes.
DC Tom Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 I was having the same problem. Heritage goes deeper here. I just read the PDF of the Treasury statement. Awesome. Treasury is using health care as an excuse to issue labor regulations. Why don't we have the State Department issue energy regulations for education, while we're at it?
B-Man Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) I just read the PDF of the Treasury statement. Awesome. Treasury is using health care as an excuse to issue labor regulations. Why don't we have the State Department issue energy regulations for education, while we're at it? "I accept your mission Tom...........and I'm reporting for Energy/Education duty !" Progressives have full ownership of ObamaCare. They built it, they passed it, they own it. This is a “teachable moment,” to use a favorite Obama phrase, when it comes to both the political philosophy and competence of liberalism. Conservatives are absolutely correct to keep reminding the public what they said versus what President Obama and liberals said about the Affordable Care Act; to test their promises against what really happened and to test conservative predictions against what really happened. . Edited February 12, 2014 by B-Man
OCinBuffalo Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Well at work today two coworkers compared the ACA to Bush, Iraq and WMD's. That was awkward. When I said "Tipping Point" this is the kind of stuff I was talking about. The concrete on "Obamacare = Fail" has been poured for the national, permanent judgement on this thing. What stops if from hardening? They might have been able to keep it in the truck had they executed the implementation, and if they didn't play politics with it. At some point(Frank Rich/Charlie Klein already have) reasonable liberals have to ask themselves: "Is this law, or this president, worth cashing in activist government as a concept and our entire agenda, for the next 20 years?" The reason they need to ask that? Your 2 buddies, comparing Obamacare to WMDs. But only sorta. WMDs is a finite problem. It died with Bush. Obama's drone strikes prove that there has been no real "generational shift" to the left on "use of force" policy, so, WMD is dead. However, Obamacare's scope is not finite, in terms of destroying the the argument, on every issue, for activist government. Obamacare was just used to kill immigration. The Rs literally said "we don't want to pass another big law that gets out of control, like Obamacare, in immigration". This same argument can be used for: anything, and it certainly can be used post-Obama. Hmmmm, doesn't look like me................lol Played poker with "Grama" in a tournament. I was sitting at the table, and they put him right next to me. I wasn't a wiseass for the first hour. Only later on, when I we were both in a hand, did I start telling him how much I liked him as Tony Soprano, and asked him if he'd ever seen Rounders, cause he looks just like this one so/so actor in it. But he came right back at me plenty. He's basically not much different than the characters he plays, in terms of his temperament, but, he's a good, funny guy, and a pretty good poker player. http://www.realclear..._obamacare.html It helps to know the she herself has been personally screwed by Obamacare. http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/12/kirsten-powers-slams-white-house-obamacare-excuses-my-blood-pressure-goes-up/
B-Large Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 With regards to healthcare I am still amazed by a few things: 1. SO many people in this country still don't know how insurance works, they have no idea why risk pools exist. It is fascinating to hear people talk about the Helth Insurance industry and the amount strange information they have been told. 2. Tons of people do hold onto a job just for insurance, at least prior to 2013. One of the gals that works for me is leaving- her husband is a private insurance adjuster, makes alot of money, they have three kids, but cannot get insurance because he had some condition or maybe it was one of the kids. She is going to just take care of her kids, and they will not get subsidies or loaf on the public dole. I also have other staff people in their late fifties who only work for insurance bacuse they have conditions and aren't old enough for Medicare. Why is the assumption that everybody who quits their job is just going to sit on on the dole all day? ****, I am leaving in September- my wife already left and makes more money self -empoyed that at some crap job. Where did this lazy narrative come from? I know come people won't do ****, but they were probably on Medicaid anyway.
OCinBuffalo Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) SO many people in this country still don't know how insurance works, they have no idea why risk pools exist. I couldn't agree more. We'd be much better off if we hadn't left the creation of the health insurance products that comprise Obamacare, to those that don't know anything about health insurance, or how to sell it, or how to market it, or how to run it, or how to support it with IT.....and try to excuse that, by calling that "hard". It's not hard, if you know something about the business, like say: a health insurance executive does. Instead, the elected/appointed Democrats, none of whom have ever done insurance for a job, and government employees, who by definition are unqualified, decided that they could build a better health insurance product line...than health insurance executives, and took it upon themselve to tell those executives what to sell. It's this hubris, or really, the belief that "those insurance executives are evil, and I know I can create a better product, because I am not evil", that has produced the worst insurance products the USA has ever seen. Edited February 12, 2014 by OCinBuffalo
B-Man Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Nearly 1 in 5 Counties Have Only One Insurer on HealthCare.gov With Obamacare’s online exchanges failing to provide rural Americans with expanded options for plans, some Americans are forgoing the exchange to buy plans in the independent market. Residents in 515 counties — nearly 1 out of 5 counties nationwide — only have one insurer selling coverage on HealthCare.gov. The cost of plans on HealthCare.gov is significantly different when residents have only one insurer versus more. According to the Wall Street Journal, the average price for a 50-year-old for a “silver plan” through the exchange jumps from $329 in places with four insurers to $406 in those with only one. The Journal reports some insurers are only offering plans via the exchanges in areas with lower health-care costs and stable financial standing. As a result, in many rural areas, where health-care costs and unemployment are high, consumers must often choose between limited plans offered on HealthCare.gov or buy policies directly from the insurer outside of the exchange if they want more than one insurer as an option, but are ineligible for federal subsidies. Health-care costs are already generally higher in rural areas because of the limited options in hospitals and physicians. And under Obamacare, experts say those areas are not likely to attract more insurance companies to sell plans on the exchanges.
DC Tom Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Nearly 1 in 5 Counties Have Only One Insurer on HealthCare.gov With Obamacare’s online exchanges failing to provide rural Americans with expanded options for plans, some Americans are forgoing the exchange to buy plans in the independent market. Residents in 515 counties — nearly 1 out of 5 counties nationwide — only have one insurer selling coverage on HealthCare.gov. The cost of plans on HealthCare.gov is significantly different when residents have only one insurer versus more. According to the Wall Street Journal, the average price for a 50-year-old for a “silver plan” through the exchange jumps from $329 in places with four insurers to $406 in those with only one. The Journal reports some insurers are only offering plans via the exchanges in areas with lower health-care costs and stable financial standing. As a result, in many rural areas, where health-care costs and unemployment are high, consumers must often choose between limited plans offered on HealthCare.gov or buy policies directly from the insurer outside of the exchange if they want more than one insurer as an option, but are ineligible for federal subsidies. Health-care costs are already generally higher in rural areas because of the limited options in hospitals and physicians. And under Obamacare, experts say those areas are not likely to attract more insurance companies to sell plans on the exchanges. But the ACA reduces costs by increasing competition!
IDBillzFan Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 But the ACA reduces costs by increasing competition! It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping!
Recommended Posts