Remember that healthcare bill that was rammed through in spite of the American people's overwhelming objection? You know, the one that was going to let you keep your insurance, your doctor, the one that was going to "bend the cost curve downward," and be a boon to the economy? Yeah, the plan that's done exactly the opposite?

Well, Congress is negotiating to exempt themselves from it. Seriously.


Congressional leaders in both parties are engaged in high-level, confidential talks about exempting lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides from the insurance exchanges they are mandated to join as part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, sources in both parties said.

The talks — which involve Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), the Obama administration and other top lawmakers — are extraordinarily sensitive, with both sides acutely aware of the potential for political fallout from giving carve-outs from the hugely controversial law to 535 lawmakers and thousands of their aides. Discussions have stretched out for months, sources said.

A source close to the talks says: “Everyone has to hold hands on this and jump, or nothing is going to get done.”

Read more: Lawmakers, aides may get Obamacare exemption - John Bresnahan and Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/obamacare-exemption-lawmakers-aides-90610.html#ixzz2RTsUTOz6)


The reason they need to exempt themselves from the rules the rest of have to live under? They're afraid they might lose some good help.


There is concern in some quarters that the provision requiring lawmakers and staffers to join the exchanges, if it isn’t revised, could lead to a “brain drain” on Capitol Hill, as several sources close to the talks put it.

The problem stems from whether members and aides set to enter the exchanges would have their health insurance premiums subsidized by their employer — in this case, the federal government. If not, aides and lawmakers in both parties fear that staffers — especially low-paid junior aides — could be hit with thousands of dollars in new health care costs, prompting them to seek jobs elsewhere. Older, more senior staffers could also retire or jump to the private sector rather than face a big financial penalty.

Fire the b@astards, every darn one of them.

Someone needs to take that to the supreme court as a violation of equal protection...

Everyone that supported it is having 2nd thoughts... or they should . Last week Max Baucus called Obamacare a train wreck .

Now ,the 22,000-member United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers not only withdrew its support for the Act, but also demanded its repeal.
Roofers' Union Seeks Repeal/Reform Of Affordable Care Act - PR Newswire - The Sacramento Bee (http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/16/5345736/roofers-union-seeks-repealreform.html)

The reason? ObamaCare subsidizes low-paid non-union workers in small companies that don't insure their employees, while leaving union shops with ObamaCare's higher health care costs and a 40% tax on Cadillac plans .That could be the final nail in the coffin of the union movement in the country . Their last big appeal was the generous benefits packages they were able to negotiate. Not only that ,but non-union contractors will have a competitive edge in bidding if the union shops keep their Cadillac plans.

I know the Dems thought that they were screwing the rich when they added the tax. But I guess they had to read the bill to find out what was really in it.

This is not the 1st shot across the bow by unions against Obamacare .

Last January, Sheet Metal Worker Local 85 in Atlanta asked for new subsidies for lower-paid union members.
Unions Seeking Special Treatment Under Obamacare Now Want Government Subsidies For Lower Paid Union Members - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/01/31/unions-seeking-special-treatment-under-obamacare-now-want-government-subsidies-for-lower-paid-union-members/)
This past August, the Communication Workers of America and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers went on strike against Verizon over health care cutbacks that came as a result of the ObamaCare Cadillac tax.
Verizon union members say strike worth hardship - The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/08/10/verizon_union_members_say_strike_worth_hardship/)

And now that unions are turning against Obamcare ,the lapdog politicians they control are also having 2nd thoughts. Besides the Baucus critique ,Sens. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Benjamin Cardin of Maryland are saying that they are hearing from constituents about rate hikes, difficulties complying with the law, and being swamped by the implementation requirements.
Democrats (http://www.gop.com/news/research/democrats-worst-fear-for-2014-obamacare/)

Sen Tom Harkin of Iowa is incensed by the adm. Decision to raid public health coffers of $332 million to pay for public relations for the health care exchanges.
Harkin angry at Obama administration (http://qctimes.com/news/local/harkin-angry-at-obama-administration/article_4478cbbc-6f9a-5c5a-a15a-c4f1c30d5452.html)

The Repubics have been against it all along ,and there is growing discontent amongst the supporters . To the accommodationist Repubics in the ranks who are crafting legislation in an attempt to make it work I warn ,don't go wobbly now.
Explaining the GOP Split Over Repealing Obamacare - NationalJournal.com (http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/explaining-the-gop-split-over-repealing-obamacare-20130426)
Do everything possible to prevent and stall implementation. It will be difficult enough to reverse the damage this law has caused now without allowing further implementation .

I can't imagine why Dems would worry about it now, can you?

$332 million to tell us how great this train wreck will be, that's all? It's not like the admin has anything better to spend it on like health care or air traffic controllers.

By the way, the shaming has worked. Boehner immediately jumped on the "full repeal" bandwagon when news about congress exempting themselves from Zerocare (I think that's more accurate than Obamacare). It took dems a little longer but they also caved. For now. They're actually still looking for a way and blaming the problem on Chuck Grassley because you know, it couldn't be their fault, they had to pass it before knowing what was in it and all that.


“Due to vague language inserted in the Affordable Care Act by Senator Chuck Grassley, not all congressional staff and Members of Congress are treated the same under the law,” Hammill wrote, noting that “no one is suggested anyone be ‘exempted’ from the ACA.”

Hammill added that, “Leader Pelosi has suggested as a possible fix to the Grassley language that all Members and all staff (committee, leadership and personal office) be required to choose exchange plans through the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan. This fix would not require legislation and could be dealt with administratively and would not exempt Members or staff from any part of the ACA.”

Pelosi told reporters Thursday that she has been in “close contact” with her deputy, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), about his talks to tweak health benefits for congressional lawmakers and aides.

“Reading the legislation carefully as to what it calls for and what an exchange is, and what the federal employee health benefit plan is compatible plan under the exchanges, we just have to look at all of that,” Pelosi said.

Obamacare exemption talk lights up Capitol Hill - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/obamacare-exemption-talk-lights-up-capitol-hill-90658.html)

Depends on what the definition of 'exchange' is...

Nice right wing spin fellas, and kudos. To bad it's a bunch of bull. You guys have NEVER acknowledged the private sectors being behind the out of control pricing of health care services which escalates beyond what it has over the last few decades, and blame government which has NO control over the pricing until 2014.

We have already seen what it will mean with Medicare as the prescription drug loop hole has been closing and the cost of drugs themselves have been reduced and will further be reduced.

Indeed, all the private sector tricks may have caused the right amount of fear through uncertainty as companies restructure to maximize profits, WHILE THEY CAN, even they see they will have to change their business model drastically, or be driven OUT of business. The alternative will be no one can afford good health care in America, except the super rich.

It was already headed that way. But I doubt any of you has ever looked at your hospital and doctor bills, and you should. Then you would know who is ripping you off, and its not the government contrary to popular right wing hollering points.

Follow the money!!

Dude, you need say no more than dems are getting nervous about this albatross around their necks, one of the chuef authors calling it a "train wreck" and congress trying to exempt themselves from it.. And no, drug prices are not coming down no more than the price of insurance us going down. The spin is all yours, dude, you once again refuse to acknowledge the plain facts.

That's the free market right of profit that you have defended for the longest, and now you find its YOU paying the price. You holler about costs so loud, but blame every thing but the ones who raise the prices.

You would have better options despite the attempts to rob you if you looked around. Yet you blame everybody but yourself. That's sad.

Dude, why do keep defending bad legislation that the people never wanted which the more we learn the worse it is? We have never denied our health care system could stand some improvement but your solution is not only just making it worse instead of better, you're jeopardizing people's jobs to boot. All those full timers going to part time is a real problem, and don't blame it on corporate greed, Zerocare caused this.

QUOTE by speechlesstx;
Dude, why do keep defending bad legislation that the people never wanted which the more we learn the worse it is?

I respectfully submit all the so called facts you have learned are from the health care industry that profits from your ignorance and fear and KNOW that a full implementation of healthcare will drive down cost and delivery, and improve OUTCOMES. I question the veracity of your statement and assumption that that's not what consumers and citizens want.


We have never denied our health care system could stand some improvement but your solution is not only just making it worse instead of better, you're jeopardizing people's jobs to boot.

Again fact say that it will add jobs and create a field of employment to replace the manufacturing losses over decades. More doctors, nurses, specialists hospitals, clinics, and schools is sorely needed to meet demand that high prices and monopolies have used to suppress wages and employment opportunities.

That means good jobs for folks and restoration of the middle class and the way to loosen up a tight labor market. Less unemployment to you conservative types. The demand I there waiting to be tapped.


All those full timers going to part time is a real problem, and don't blame it on corporate greed, Zerocare caused this.

The unemployment issue is a reflection of private business decisions. But of course blame government and not the job creators that don't want a living wage in any of their businesses. Just the CEO's and upper management. Workers can be replaced anytime, including YOU!!

I submit none of my facts came from the health care industry. They come from from everywhere BUT the health care industry and obviously it's getting under your skin. Face it Zerocare sucks.

Maybe that's what you should look closer at, the health care industry. The facts you uncover will shock you. Is there a reason you look away from the ones controlling the cost and services they deliver?

If so, please share.

I had radiation for breast cancer -- over $800 for 40 seconds of radiation -- times 16 treatments. (They had wanted to do 35 treatments, but I talked them out of that notion.) A friend had a lump removed from her arm -- melanoma -- two surgeries because they didn't do the first one correctly, then radiation, and then a body scan that showed no spread of cancer cells. She has been told ("just in case") she should have a full-body scan every 3-6 months to check for cancer. Her doctor and the treatment center smile broadly every time she makes an appointment for a scan on their shiny, expensive equipment.

Steven Brill did an article for Time magazine that will pop your eyes out. It's a must read to understand why your medical services are so high. Consider a $10,000 markup for Tylenol. The cheapest painkiller on the market that hospitals use.

Even a street level dope dealer can do the math on that kind of profit. Why can't the right wing?

Don't worry ,the death panel will take care of you. What do you think your auto insurance would be if you insured for an oil change ,a rotation of your tires ,or a radiator flush like you do for coverage of a hangnail ? The truth is that the profitability of the health care industry is in line with the profit rates of any other industry . (I know that is small comfort to you Tal since you don't think any company has a right to profits ) .

As an example , food is as essential to a human ,even more so than health care . Yet no one complains that the food industry on average earns a 12.07 % profit compared to 12.22 % average for medical care . But so long as America thinks they need insurance for routine health care we will never solve the cost problems . Lucky for you I have a solution. We all should have health savings accounts to pay for the routine ,and we should supplement it with catastrophic care coverage to deal with WG's radiation treatments .

How much would that cost us individually? Medicare for all, birth to death, and eliminate the high cost of the brokers.

How do you even buy insurance on Walmart, and McDonalds wages? Let alone fund a health care account?

I though your side knew the answer to that... mandate it

This is my group plan insurer's plan for Maryland. But I don't have to worry because it just affects individual policies and small businesses. Yeah--- right.

Health insurers propose rate increases - Baltimore Sun (http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-04-24/health/bs-hs-insurance-rate-hike-20130424_1_health-care-reform-chet-burrell-health-insurance-plans)


" CareFirst proposes 25 percent rate increase under health care reform
Insurer said opening market to sicker people will drive up costs
April 24, 2013|By Andrea K. Walker, The Baltimore Sun

Blaming the cost to implement health care reform, the state's largest health insurer has proposed eye-popping rate increases to state regulators for individuals and small businesses.

CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield wants to raise rates an average of 25 percent on those who buy coverage individually. Chet Burrell, the insurer's CEO, said the increase was needed to cover the cost of more sick people who will be joining the insurance rolls under health care reform.
Ads by Google

Private Health ExchangeSetup Private Health Insurance Exchange & Lead the Post Reform Era Healthcare Software Solutions, Health Insurance Sales Software Solutions - hCentive (http://www.hCentive.com)
Karate summer day campsChidren 5 and up self defense and confidence paselfdefense.com

People with pre-existing conditions were denied coverage prior to health care reform, keeping insurance costs down.

In recent years, rates for individual insurance coverage have risen an average of 7 percent to 11 percent, according to various studies.

'We have always supported the intent and goal of the Affordable Care Act, but this is the practical result of it by opening the pool to everybody,' Burrell said.

The rate increase must be approved by the Maryland Insurance Administration, which indicated it would closely examine rate increase proposals made by CareFirst and other insurers who operate in the state.

'I want to stress that these rate filings reflect the carriers' requested rates,' said Maryland Insurance Commissioner Therese M. Goldsmith in a statement. "In Maryland, the premium rate a carrier requests is not always the rate that is granted.'

The rate proposals are for health insurance plans that would be offered under a state exchange — an open marketplace where people would be able to shop for insurance. Most people would continue to purchase insurance through job-based plans separate from the exhange.

Burrell said small businesses purchasing through the exchange would see CareFirst rates rise on average 14 percent to 15 percent because of rising health care costs and new taxes, fees and assessments required under health care reform.

Older individuals could see decreases under the proposed rates, but younger people could see increases of as much as 150 percent, reflecting limits on how much rates can vary based on age, Burrell said. "
(see link for remainder of article)

As an example , food is as essential to a human ,even more so than health care . Yet no one complains that the food industry on average earns a 12.07 % profit compared to 12.22 % average for medical care .
Of course we complain!! And plant our own gardens and freeze the harvest for winter eating. More and more people are getting a few hens to keep in their back yard. A milk cow will be next.

Its important to remember that any increases the insurance company predicts is speculation, and a major excuse to raise rates now, just in case. (what do you think the excuse was 20 years ago?)

Forget the fear and uncertainty for a second, and use logic. How many customers will a company have if their price tag is 25 percent higher than a competitors?

These are a few statements from some or all of the (Carefirst's) competiton in Maryland:
"An Aetna spokesman said proposed premiums for Maryland small group plans would rise between 12 and 16 percent next year. United (United Healthcare) proposed average small group increases of from 15 to 28 percent, but premium changes could vary widely depending on the plan, said company spokesman Matt Stearns. "
From: Maryland Offers Glimpse At Obamacare Insurance Math - Kaiser Health News (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/April/24/maryland-aca-premiums-carefirst-blue-cross.aspx)

How much would that cost us individually? Medicare for all, birth to death, and eliminate the high cost of the brokers.

How do you even buy insurance on Walmart, and McDonalds wages? Let alone fund a health care account?

Everyone is going to be on Walmart and McDonald's wages because Zerocare is turning us into part time workers.

I agree with fire Obama, and all the Democrats in the Senate; because they are the ones who voted it through; and not even read it!
The American voters put Obama and the Democrats back into politics in 2012; because 47% of all Americans are now on food stamps. They like being taken care of by the Federal Gov't. The unemployment rate in America is still just as bad as it was in 2009; being over 20 Million Americans out of work, stop looking for work, and don't apply anymore for unemployment.
Obama will go down in history as the most failed Presidency in our history, so far.

fredg,

Where did you find that " because 47% of all Americans are now on food stamps. " stat?
Some 15% of U.S. Receives Food Stamps - Real Time Economics - WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/04/05/some-15-of-u-s-receives-food-stamps/)

Everyone is going to be on Walmart and McDonald's wages because Zerocare is turning us into part time workers.

Obama told all those factories to go to where there is cheap labor, weak government, and no laws? Or was that the Romney crowd? Or the Bush boys?

Obama told all those factories to go to where there is cheap labor, weak government, and no laws? Or was that the Romney crowd? Or the Bush boys?

Um, Zerocare left a loophole with 30 hours as the magic number but of course we had to pass it to know what's in it. Really Tal, that's an extremely stupid way to govern. Like I said, don't blame it on businesses, they aren't stupid like Pelosi.

Good news, according to Zero himself Americans are already enjoying the benefits of Zerocare, they just don't know it yet. The rest of the Democrats chimed in, too. With their grasp of math and how things work it's no wonder we're in deep doo-doo.

If Obamacare was so freaking good... The White-house and the rest of Capital Hill would all be early adopters.

The fact all the leading democrats have exempted themselves says everything anyone needs to know about it. And how bad it is.

If Obamacare was so freaking good...The White-house and the rest of Capital Hill would all be early adopters.
If you already have health insurance, you keep it. If you have none, like my son who has a part-time job and no health insurance, you will be able to apply for an insurance plan under Obamacare.

True, but since they were shamed they dropped (temporarily) their pursuit of an exemption. But how dud they come up with this free coverage bit? It 's only free in the sense that we taxpayers are paying for it.

If you already have health insurance, you keep it. If you have none, like my son who has a part-time job and no health insurance, you will be able to apply for an insurance plan under Obamacare.
And you believe that propaganda? Its already been proven to be wrong because a LOT of people with insurance now are going to lose it when it kicks in.

And you believe that propaganda? Its already been proven to be wrong because a LOT of people with insurance now are going to lose it when it kicks in.
I'm waiting and watching.

Of course... Owebama and the idiots that rammed this down our throats won't have anything to do with it themselves... and they are arguing to exempt their staffs because it will be far too expensive... well, duh?

Of course....Owebama and the idiots that rammed this down our throats won't have anything to do with it themselves.....and they are arguing to exempt their staffs because it will be far too expensive....well, duh?
Is that what has been said, that it would be too expensive? Does the staff have insurance already? Or will they be required to choose from Obamacare plans?

Wg,

I drank the koolaid on that promise of nobody losing their coverage too, but it does not appear to be anywhere close to a fact. Earlier quotes here on this subject (might have been 2.0) indicated that employers will not have to offer family coverage, just coverage for the employee him or herself. If that is true, a spouse who previously was covered under the other spouse's insurance may not have coverage under obamacare. For those particular citizens, they will have been not able to keep their coverage.
Below is not the article that was referred to earlier, but a similar one.

Look Out Below, The Obamacare Chaos Is Coming - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/07/look-out-below-the-obamacare-chaos-is-coming/)

"Just wait until the broad realization dawns that the harsh reality of Obamacare is that tens of millions will lose their employer provided insurance because of the perverse incentives under the program. Even the establishment CBO admits that at least 7 million, and as many as 20 million, will lose their employer coverage. In February, CBO reported that “in 2019 [5 years after Obamacare is implemented], an estimated 12 million people who would have had an offer of employment-based coverage under prior law will lose their offer under current law [aka 'Obamacare'].”

an estimated 12 million people who would have had an offer of employment-based coverage under prior law will lose their offer under current law [aka ‘Obamacare’].”
Who will take it away from them? I've read that the insurance companies are all hyper and already dumping their insureds, yet the insurance companies stand to gain millions of new insureds (and more money).

Below is the paragraph after the one I quoted in my last post, from the linked Forbes article.
In the situation quoted if I were the employer I would tell the employee that the rules of obamacare made it more cost-effective not to provide them with their old coverage. But the fact would be that they were not able to keep their coverage as was promised.

"But that report is just the early breeze of the coming storm. The Obamacare employer mandate requires all employers of 50 or more full time workers to purchase the expensive insurance for those employees that Kathleen Sebelius (“The Secretary shall determine”) specifies that they must buy. But that mandate is enforced by a penalty of $2,000 per worker, which may be only 10% of the average cost of family coverage under the Sebelius requirements."

A factor that's been left out of this equation is that employees with no union have no voice in employee policy or treatment, or conditions under which they work.

Anybody in a union having the same issues with health insurance? If coverage goes down did premiums? Does that make logical sense if they don't? If you chose to drop your employer provided insurance will you be compensated by MO' MONEY?

Bet you guys hate unions, but that may be your problem, no leverage in your own interest. Or maybe you guys rather blame anyone but the guy who sets up your benefit for you.

Don't know anybody in a union that I have personally heard complain but there have been many reports of union officials having serious problems with obamacare. This is just a sample:
Union Demands 'Repeal or Complete Reform (http://www.bizcoachinfo.com/archives/14430)

Actually, I do know someone now that I think about it- myself.
I am technically a retired member of a union and have Carefirst insurance in MD (as described in an earlier post) and Carefirst has already estimated that rates will rise 25% when the law is implemented. But just for small employers and individual policies. I fully expect my premium to increase too even though mine is a group plan, and coverage will get worse as has been the trend for a long time now.

What seems to be scaring everyone is the estimated rise in cost and lower quality of care that employers are "promising". I have no doubt that it's a continuation of a longer trends of rising prices.

Tal prices are always rising and standards are falling, it goes on until the system is reinvented.

Change was needed, but this much change might be a bad thing initially, then the insurance companies will sort out their products and you can expect the usual set of exclusions. The fault in this system is linking coverage to employment so that there is a third party in the negotiations

the fault in this system is linking coverage to employment so that there is a third party in the negotiations
Yes ;it would be much better if an individual had the right to negotiate their own plan with any provider offering services . It would also be better if there weren't so many mandated coverages.

Yes ;it would be much better if an individual had the right to negotiate their own plan with any provider offering services . It would also be better if there weren't so many mandated coverages.

Well Tom at last we agree on something

But tom, those mandated coverages are FREE according to Democrats.

This is just one of those days full of stuff you just can't make up. The owner of Zerocare said in Mexico that "the 85 to 90 percent of Americans who already have health insurance" are "already experiencing most of the benefits of the Affordable Care Act — even if they don’t know it.” Of course that's just another is a lie (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-that-90-percent-of-americans-dont-have-to-worry-about-obamacare/2013/04/30/01414c02-b1f7-11e2-9a98-4be1688d7d84_blog.html).

Now we have Harry Reid yammering (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/297333-reid-says-more-funding-is-needed-to-prevent-healthcare-law-from-becoming-a-train-wreck)about needing more money to stop the "train wreck". If only those darn Republicans hadn't been preventing him from getting more money in the budget, said the guy that refused to pass a budget for 3 years

I'm thinking once Americans REALLY see the "benefits" of Zerocare next year we're going to see a GOP landslide in the election.

Its got to be better than the last two decade of rising costs of premiums and services. And throwing people out after they get sick, and refused treatment for serious illness. I mean geez guy, people are getting screwed and dying and you say go back to that when a path forward is just over the hill?

You blame Obama Care, and give a free pass to the industry that got us where we are. Is that why your side can only throws rocks because you cannot deal with hard facts and evidence? That makes YOU the problem and not government.

From yammering:
“The president is taking money — I wish we had the money just to do this on its own, but he’s agreed, he’s determined he’s going to take money from some of the other things that he feels are less important in the healthcare bill and put it on letting you and others know what’s in the bill,” Reid told a caller to the show.
Still trying to find out what's in the bill?
Wonder if Nancy was the caller?

Still trying to find out what's in the bill?
?

What's the problem don't you have any money for paper or an electronic copy you can read?

Perhaps the money should be invested in lifting the literacy rate for politicians or is it so heavy you need a truck to carry it away

Its been online for the last 2 years.

Its been online for the last 2 years.

And they still don't know what's in it, how stupid is that?

Here it is knock yourself out reading this monstrosity realizing that for every page there are scores more of written and unwritten code that supplements this pos. What we do know is that most of it's due to go into effect this autumn ;and no body knows how to properly implement it.
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/

You just need more public servants implementation is what they are good at, you give each one a page

It is flawed in it's premise and construct .That's why the Dem leaders that created it are now calling it a 'train wreck'

That's what happens when you don't do the debate.

Oh it was debated... what we did not get was a bill everyone could look at before it was voted on .What we also got was Parliamentary tricks to get it passed in the dead of night.

Its got to be better than the last two decade of rising costs of premiums and services. And throwing people out after they get sick, and refused treatment for serious illness. I mean geez guy, people are getting screwed and dying and you say go back to that when a path forward is just over the hill?

You blame Obama Care, and give a free pass to the industry that got us where we are. Is that why your side can only throws rocks because you cannot deal with hard facts and evidence? That makes YOU the problem and not government.

You're a broken record of straw men arguments. Despising a horrific train wreck of a law doesn't mean anyone wants to go back to the stone age any more than protecting women and children from butchers like Gosnell and Carhart does.

When your president and his minions lock Republicans out of the discussion to ram this ever increasing monstrosity that no one wanted through, it leaves no possibility for other ideas to get through. It's all on Democrats so stop your whining every time something else bad about it is revealed. If you'd known what was in it BEFORE you passed it you might have a leg to stand on but you didn't and now you have to own it, like it or not.

you just need more public servants implementation is what they are good at, you give each one a page

The IRS needs thousands of new bureacrats just to deal with Obamacare. Typical liberal solution, a health care fix that creates more tax auditors than doctors.

You're a broken record of straw men arguments. Despising a horrific train wreck of a law doesn't mean anyone wants to go back to the stone age any more than protecting women and children from butchers like Gosnell and Carhart does.

Waiting for your solutions or ideas. But please no more of this champion for women stance as you have lip service but no ideas to deal with the reality of this world.

When your president and his minions lock Republicans out of the discussion to ram this ever increasing monstrosity that no one wanted through, it leaves no possibility for other ideas to get through. It's all on Democrats so stop your whining every time something else bad about it is revealed. If you'd known what was in it BEFORE you passed it you might have a leg to stand on but you didn't and now you have to own it, like it or not.

That's a lie. They negotiated until it came time for a vote, then the walked because the goal was not to govern responsibly, but slow things down and obstruct EVERYTHING. 40 votes to repeal, and NO replace?

Voters rejected Romney/Ryan's plan for us to screw our own kids and grandkids so that a fact.

Lol, you think we're the ones paying lip service to women? We aren't the ones protecting the institution of abortion over women's health. I've already given my solutions so enough of that game, you created this culture that devalued life and family so don't blame us.

Your narrative that Republicans don't have alternative ideas is also a straw man. Try arguing from the truth.

The truth is most women voted against your ideas, methods, and motivations. Yet you don't listen to anyone's ideas but your own and get rather nasty when confronted with the truth.

I can go along with more oversight on the abortion issue, as it would not be an option were I a woman, but would never force that choice on another. But you obviously want woman to have children and be barefoot, pregnant, and dependent on a man to take care of her.

Not everyone agrees with that opinion, but what's lost in your argument is all the guys who make babies don't take care of them. That's what I find wrong with you anti abortion stance because while you defend life, you don't defend it after it gets here.

That's the definition of a dead beat dad, of which you seem to be one.

The Dems negotiated amongst themselves trying to bring in the blue dogs who were reluctant . It's pure nonsense to claim any Republic ideas were considered. As you recall. Zero told us all to go to the back of the bus.
"We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”

He was right since you proved you couldn't drive worth a darn. So get to the back of the bus and out of the way.

I rest my case.. Let's dispel with the nonsense that the Dems negotiated this deal with the Repubics . The Dems only negotiated with themselves.

Repubs are not only bad drivers of an economy, but negotiations are not a strong suit either. Both claims are backed by facts, events, and actions. So I rest my case also.

This is a debate that never ends, around and around and around we go and where we will come out no one knows. Is all your politics like this; endless debate and no solution?

What a mess!

Yeah things shoved down our throats normally go unresolved... much like the abortion debate.

Repubs are not only bad drivers of an economy, but negotiations are not a strong suit either. Both claims are backed by facts, events, and actions. So I rest my case also.

You can't negotiate from the back of the bus. What's funny is it's Zero that sucks at it so much Dems have cut him out of negotiations.

He was right since you proved you couldn't drive worth a darn. So get to the back of the bus and out of the way.

The person that can't drive woth a damn in behind the wheel of the bus right now... hitting every car parked along side BOTH sides of the road.

yeah things shoved down our throats normally go unresolved ...much like the abortion debate.

Just swallow, and we can get a resolution. I know that gag reflex gets in the way, but we tried to be gentle.

Should we shove harder? We can you know or did you miss he last election?


You can't negotiate from the back of the bus. What's funny is it's Zero that sucks at it so much Dems have cut him out of negotiations.

That's why we refused to go to the back of the bus AGAIN and let you guys drive anymore. We have had enough of right wing reckless driving! If you won't talk to Obama, then talk to the hand(S)!

Its hard o swallow AND holler isn't it?


The person that can't drive woth a damn in behind the wheel of the bus right now.....hitting every car parked along side BOTH sides of the road.

If you stop trying to grab the steering wheel back we could stay on the road better. Just swallow a little and it will help everybody A LOT!! Even you guys.

Just sayin'!!

Your comments are really revealing today, Tal. Obviously it's your way or the highway. Sorry dude, this is my country, too.

If you stop trying to grab the steering wheel back we could stay on the road better. Just swallow a little and it will help everybody A LOT!!!!!!!!!! Even you guys.

Just sayin'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He had complete control for his first two years... and that's when ithis started.

The man is a menace... and a threat to this country... what he needs is locked up. Not handed the keys to the dealership.

He's only a president... not a KIng... and certainly NOT the Messiah.

He had complete control for his first two years... and that's when ithis started.

Despite YOUR bet efforts, he got the bus out of the ditch, and changed the flat tires. The bus crash started way before he got to town

The man is a menace... and a threat to this country... what he needs is locked up. Not handed the keys to the dealership.

You have been saying that since before he took office.

He's only a president... not a KIng... and certainly NOT the Messiah.

That's what we have been telling you guys but of course you don't believe it. But YOU keep saying he's a savior or whatever.

Seems all the rock throwing and hollering you guys do was for nothing since he got re-elected, but you guys haven't changed one bit. same ol' same ol'.

He had complete control for his first two years.....and thats when ithis started.

Despite YOUR bet efforts, he got the bus out of the ditch, and changed the flat tires. The bus crash started way before he got to town

The man is a menace...and a threat to this country...what he needs is locked up. Not handed the keys to the dealership.

You have been saying that since before he took office.

He's only a president...not a KIng...and certainly NOT the Messiah.

That's what we have been telling you guys but of course you don't believe it. But YOU keep saying he's a savior or whatever.

Seems all the rock throwing and hollering you guys do was for nothing since he got re-elected, but you guys haven't hanged one bit. same ol' same ol'.

Tats a delusional belief... we had far more people that actually had jobs whe Bush lest oiffice than we have 4 years later... and we had FAR less debt.

That bus was run into the ditch and off the cliff both.

You forgot who steered the bus into the ditch, BO was set up to fail and you are still poisoning the chalice

The same HHS secretary that campaigned for Zero in her official capacity is now extorting money for Zerocare from those her agency regulates to implement this disaster.

Budget request denied, Sebelius turns to health executives to finance Obamacare (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/10/budget-request-denied-sebelius-turns-to-health-executives-to-finance-obamacare/)

There is obviously no shame in this administration.

There is no shame in Republican obstruction is more to the point. Can't repeal the law, won't replace it if you did, so starve the beast. I thought you were all for community health centers?

You still act as if Republicans have been running the show. Regardless, what part of conflict of interest do you not get? There is apparently no wrong this admin can do that fazes you, and I'm guessing no justification for the law too stupid. This Dem thinks Zerocare will prevent bad marriages.

Dem Congresswoman: Obamacare Will Improve Marriages | RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/05/09/dem_congresswoman_obamacare_will_improve_marriages .html)

Lets be very clear, Republicans run nothing in congress they OBSTRUCT progress period.

Marriages without the financial burdens of rapidly rising health concerns/costs may be a good thing. Why isn't it?

Now how about those community centers? Not for profit community centers to get people enrolled in health insurance programs instead of you and me footing the bill?

Apparently you don't understand conflict of interest.. or don't care how corrupt your government is. I'm guessing the latter.

Asking for support for community centers to educate the uninsured about getting insured is a conflict of interest? Really?

But republican obstruction to getting people wellness isn't? Obstructing poor people from getting wellness isn't a conflict of interest? Shrinking government for citizens to grow more profits for rich guys isn't a conflict of interest?

You have life and BS all mixed up.

Lets be very clear, Republicans run nothing in congress they OBSTRUCT progress period.

Marriages without the financial burdens of rapidly rising health concerns/costs may be a good thing. Why isn't it?

Now how about those community centers? Not for profit community centers to get people enrolled in health insurance programs instead of you and me footing the bill?

Gee... nice and hypocritical of you to not call your own lefties obstructionists for not going along with what's good for the country.

You don't know what's good for the country Smoothy, you only know what's good for YOU!

You don't know what's good for the country Smoothy, you only know what's good for YOU!

I know what's good for this country... and it isn't Socialism. Its hurt every other country its ever been imposed in... EVER.

The left is insane... because the definition of insanity being trying the same thing over, and over, and over... expecting a different result.

I know whats good for this country....and it isn't Socialism.
You won't claim your monthly SS check and Medicare coverage when you are in your 60s?

You won't claim your monthly SS check and Medicare coverage when you are in your 60s?

That's not socialism.. because I've been paying into that expressedly for that since I started working.

There isn't a welfare or Medicaid deduction for your paychecks... there IS a SSI and Medicare deduction you pay your whole life to collect when you retire.

HUGE difference.

If they refund me everything I've paid into that fund since I started working... then I won't collect it. In fact I wish they would.

Medicaid deduction
My husband, who had a great job for 30 years, had heart surgery several years ago. Medicare picked up the tab to the tune of over $80,000. I'm guessing that wiped out whatever he had paid into Medicare over the years. What if he has another surgery -- will Medicare pay or turn him down?

WG the same crowd hollering about Medicare back in the 60's is the same crowd hollering now about ACA, same arguments, same actions.

On we roll toward common sense. The 21st century will NOT be repealed.

That's true ;the weight of the nanny state on the backs of the people will collapse social democracies around the world .

that's true ;the weight of the nanny state on the backs of the people will collapse social democracies around the world .

And exploiting poor people around the world for cheap labor in the name of capitalism is even worse.

Yeah since most of the world lives on less than a couple bucks a day we'd hate to give 'em a better paying job.

Yeah since most of the world lives on less than a couple bucks a day we'd hate to give 'em a better paying job.
So they don't.

I know whats good for this country....and it isn't Socialism. Its hurt every other country its ever been imposed in.....EVER.
Jesus in Matthew 25:34-36, NKJV: Then the King will say to those on his right hand, “Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you looked after Me; I was in prison and you came to Me … Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.”

Yet, the diagnostic today is severe: with age, the democratic welfare state as we know it suffers from morbid obesity, and while the remedy is not hard to conceive—rebalancing the relationship between the public to private sector—it seems impossible to administer.

The etiology of the crisis points at the very design of the regime: the patient will not take the cure, voting out any government trying to cut public spending. Foreign donors who bail out bankrupt governments are often slapped in the face by the citizens of those countries. The recent woes of Greece and Cyprus show how the people can lack responsibility and gratitude...

The economic viability of the model depended on continuous growth of the private sector, from which taxes would flow. When that was not enough—which would not be long—the prospect of future taxes served as collateral for public borrowing. GDP did grow, but spending and debt grew even faster: the average OECD ratios to GDP are now around 50 percent for public expenditures and 80 percent for public debt.

With growth structurally slowing down in the most developed countries, appropriations have become a zero-sum game between those who get and those who will have to pay. Yet, familiarity with gigantic deficits—the combined public debt of OECD countries exceeds 40 trillion dollars—gives confidence that the system still has some give in it. Many have come to imagine the state as the custodian of an infinite supply of money, and their democratic rights as a claim to financial entitlements...


Democracy (http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/146286)

Democracy (http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/146286)
By Camille Pecastaing (Contributor to the Working Group on Islamism and the International Order)

Camille Pecastaing is a senior associate professor of Middle East studies at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. A student of behavioral sciences and historical sociology, his research focuses on the cognitive and emotive foundations of xenophobic political cultures and ethnoreligious violence, using the Muslim world and its European and Asian peripheries as a case study. He has written on political Islam, Islamist terrorism, social change, and globalization. Pecastaing’s latest publication is Jihad in the Arabian Sea.

And he's handsome! Faculty Directory | Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies - SAIS (http://nanjing.jhu.edu/faculty-and-scholarship/faculty-profiles/camille-pecastaing-phd)

Lol I don't have an opinion about his looks... but most of the contributors to 'Defining Ideas ' are worth reading... my favorite is Richard Epstein .

Jesus in Matthew 25:34-36, NKJV: Then the King will say to those on his right hand, “Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you looked after Me; I was in prison and you came to Me … Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.”

Smoothy doesn't understand he has no idea of an economy that doesn't have greed at its centre

Again... was Jesus speaking to nations instead of individuals ? I gain nothing by compelling another human to be generous.

again ... was Jesus speaking to nations instead of individuals ? I gain nothing by compelling another human to be generous.
Nations are made up of individuals.

again ... was Jesus speaking to nations instead of individuals ? I gain nothing by compelling another human to be generous.

Interestingly It is not about you. Jesus example is good for nations just as it is for individuals and it isn't about compelling anyone, if you don't do it out of free will what is the point.

There are two economies Tom the hoarders and the givers eventually the economy based on hoarding falls apart

interestingly It is not about you. Jesus example is good for nations just as it is for individuals and it isn't about compelling anyone, if you don't do it out of free will what is the point.

There are two economies Tom the hoarders and the givers eventually the economy based on hoarding falls apart
No the economy that taxes to bribe the people falls apart . I have no problem with helping the poor. But the western world has gone way beyond that subsidizing sloth.

no the economy that taxes to bribe the people falls apart
Huh? Who taxes us? We tax us.

No we elect the morons

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury.
Alexander Fraser Tytler

The problem is we forgot the mission, to form a more perfect union. Now the mission is getting rich by any means necessary.

The problem is we forgot the mission, to form a more perfect union. Now the mission is getting rich by any means necessary.

No Tal you forgot to move on from the eighteenth century thinking, a more perfect union was important, even essential then, but what is the use of a man standing up every year and reporting the union is strong when it is falling apart at the most essential level.

I agree with you that the essential that the rich get richer by all means necessary has been with you from the beginning, it is why slavery wasn't stopped when the rest of the civilised world stopped it and it is why your economy can't recover today. You do not have the primary objective of lifting all your people out of poverty, only those who can lift themselves, because in reality you think poverty is something that happens to someoneelse

http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/146286]Democracy

Democracy (http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/146286)

I think this is a reasonable argument for for how representative democracy has been replaced by ruling elites. However, I would have thought that in order for a society to suffer from, "Democracy's Death-by-Welfare, such a society would need to be democratic in the first place.

You are right about the economy that taxes in order to bribe falls apart. In exactly the same way an economy that taxes the people in order to provide for corporate welfare will also fall apart. Don't blame any of this on democracy.

I think this is a reasonable argument for for how representative democracy has been replaced by ruling elites. However, I would have thought that in order for a society to suffer from, "Democracy's Death-by-Welfare, such a society would need to be democratic in the first place.

You are right about the economy that taxes in order to bribe falls apart. In exactly the same way an economy that taxes the people in order to provide for corporate welfare will also fall apart. Don't blame any of this on democracy.

The founders were wary of democracy and tried to add safeguards into the Constitution to prevent the very situation we find ourselves in today. The social democratic model is unsustainable .You know it and I know it . Eventually you run out of other people's money .

The founders were wary of democracy and tried to add safeguards into the Constitution to prevent the very situation we find ourselves in today. The social democratic model is unsustainable .You know it and I know it . Eventually you run out of other people's money .

By "social democratic model", I assume you mean the corporate and public welfare model. The model that also includes unproductive people and unproductive elites of society.

Is this the model you are referring to?

Fabianism

Fabianism

So I can take that as a yes?

Of course Tom thinks fabianism is socialism, he may be right and if you scratch Obama you might find a fabianist he has been to the right schools, We had one lead the country once, what a disaster that turned out to be, the whole country went though reconstruction and industry fled offshore. This could be why US industries haven't come back they smell a fabianista in the White House

It's not unusual in certain circles to pass off corporatism as Fabianism.

It's not unusual in certain circles to pass off corporatism as Fabianism.

By corporatism you mean state ownership of the means of production, well Obama has found an excuse for some of that

by corporatism you mean state ownership of the means of production, well Obama has found an excuse for some of that

More accurately I mean neo-corporatism. I call it political corporatism. In economic terms it basically means an arrangement with corporations, labour and the state to create an economy. Although it can mean more than just economics


In short the creation of ruling elites. It is this system of ruling elites that creates the real problems for democracy, not necessarily the types of problems highlighted in the article Tom posted previously.

by corporatism you mean state ownership of the means of production, well Obama has found an excuse for some of that

You mean a bailout? Those companies can always buy back their government held stocks. But it's a sham to say the US is a Democracy, or a Republic.

It's a old European style government where the few control the many for profit. The names have been changed to protect the wealthy.

More accurately I mean neo-corporatism. I call it political corporatism. In economic terms it basically means an arrangement with corporations, labour and the state to create an economy. Although it can mean more than just economics


In short the creation of ruling elites. It is this system of ruling elites that creates the real problems for democracy, not necessarily the types of problems highlighted in the article Tom posted previously.

Yes Bob Hawke did that sort of thing here with his consensus. Fabians originally were for a sort of creaping reform although they did do some radical things like universal health care where as socialists tend to more radical reforms. The US certainly seems to have problems with ruling elites and the corporations that are behind the lobbys. Think about having to deal with 30,000 lobbyists. Britain the home of Fabianism seemed to have a different problem with ruling elites, this is why the fabians tried to reform the house of Lords

And what blabbering idiot would TRUST the IRS to run Obamacare after the recent illegal activities they have been caught in... passing on private a dn confidential personal and tax information to Liberal activists in ProPublica BY IRS employees at the order of their managers.

Its even worse... Pro Publica... a leftist ProObama organizations was improperly and illegally given private and confidential details from 31 Conservative groups Tax return documents by Obama operatives working inside the IRS.

And they admit it themselves BEFORE it came out during an investigation.

Obama and the heads of the IRS need to go to jail... as well as any other person involved or that had knowledge of these crimes at the IRS.

IRS Office That Targeted Tea Party Also Disclosed Confidential Docs From Conservative Groups - ProPublica

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/05/14/irs-released-confidential-info-on-conservative-groups-to-propublica/

The tea party groups have taken credit for electing many people to the congress on the state level and that has thrown the fear of god into republicans during there primaries. So how does a political organization even qualify for a special tax status as a social welfare organization?

How do we know Karl Rove isn't behind all these groups popping up in record numbers to hide and funnel money to right wing candidates trying to destroy the government? I don't remember any repubs raising hell when they pulled the same thing in 2000 and 2004.

GOP hysteria over IRS (http://www.examiner.com/article/gop-hysteria-over-irs-scandal-exposes-republican-double-standard)


Despite the extra scrutiny that delayed the groups receiving their tax exempt status, there is no evidence that any right wing or Tea Party groups were denied approval. The only group that did not get tax exempt was a Democratic group. That seems to weaken the case that the scrutiny was designed to help Barack Obama.


During the 2004 campaign, the IRS audited the NAACP after its president, Julian Bond, spoke against the Iraq War and George Bush at the organization's convention. Democrats questioned the audit but Republicans found no concern let alone outrage.

In addition, the IRS tried to revoke the tax exempt status of a California church when a visiting speaker spoke out against the Iraq War. Democrats in Congress raised the issue but no Republicans found any outrage.

Selective memory, selective outrage, selective facts. Distractions to NOT do the people work.

How do we know Karl Rove isn't behind all these groups popping up in record numbers to hide and funnel money to right wing candidates trying to destroy the government?
Well for one thing Rove and the Bushies hate the Tea Party .Rove is very much of the Republic insider club.


Despite the extra scrutiny that delayed the groups receiving their tax exempt status, there is no evidence that any right wing or Tea Party groups were denied approval. The only group that did not get tax exempt was a Democratic group. That seems to weaken the case that the scrutiny was designed to help Barack Obama.
Eric Holder is launching a criminal investigation .Why don't you stop being an apologist and admit that this is an over the top terrible thing for any agency to be doing ,let alone the most powerful bureaucracy in government .

Your two isolated examples (and I'll look into them later ) are nothing compared to what appears to be a systemic attempt to intimidate and deny political organizations from their legitimate role in a democracy . Who does the Emperor think he is ? Hugo Chavez ?

I say if heads DON'T roll including Obamas... when we get a president we do the same thing to EVERY Liberal group out there... after all they are arguing its nothing bad... so they will be fine when we do it to them, lets see how they like it happening then, and tossing their same argument back at them when they scream bloody Murder..

so they will be fine when we do it to them
It already happened back in 2004 under President Bush.

well for one thing Rove and the Bushies hate the Tea Party .Rove is very much of the Repubic insider club.


Eric Holder is launching a criminal investigation .Why don't you stop being an apologist and admit that this is an over the top terrible thing for any agency to be doing ,let alone the most powerful bureaucracy in government .

Your two isolated examples (and I'll look into them later ) are nothing compared to what appears to be a systemic attempt to intimidate and deny political organizations from their legitimate role in a democracy . Who does the Emperor think he is ? Hugo Chavez ?

Name one right wing organization that was denied its tax status. There are none! This is about secret money funneled to candidates not yet another right wing holler victim red meat fest.

While you are at it, Google the republicans calling for an investigation of white house leaks after the failed bombing of an American plane by Al-Qaida in Yemen last year. Just a heads up.be careful what you ask for.

There is no such thing as isolated incidence when it comes to you guys going back to Hoover. Scandals and conspiracy instead of jobs?

It already happened back in 2004 under President Bush.

Really... got evidence of that... because there certainly wasn't any stink raised at the time... because they were busy fabricating things at CBS to blame on Bush that never happened since they had nothing else to whine about.

We all Remember FileGate.. where Hillary was in contempt of court for 9 months for refusing to hand over files compiled illegally on republicans.

.

Re NAACP audit :
No one denied the NAACP tax ID number, nor did they ask probing questions of the NAACP about family members and political positions. You have zero proof that the audit was not legitimate .

And for the Pasadena church... I couldn't care less if they all lost their tax exempt status. I know the left wants the mega churches and the Pat Robertson's of the world to lose their status even as they applaud the long held tradition of the Black church in this country to preach politics from the pulpit.

I find nothing wrong with politics from the pulpit ,except for the tax exempt status which makes the church a defacto "state religion " by the arrangement . Further ,it compromises the independence of the church by accepting the tax breaks.

Very commendable Tom, reality is the Church should stay out of politics just as politics should stay out of the Church. I don't know how that works in reality because both are about human interaction and relationship, but by all means revoke the not for profit exemptions, the additional revenue might bail out the government and the debt but no state religion is good since there was a state religion of sorts in America before the revolution

You have said that before Tom, and while I applaud your consistency on the matter of church exemptions I think the TParty was not harmed by this extra scrutiny for the same reasons you give about the NAACP was not harmed. They got there tax ID number. Seems the practice was stopped and the wording changed in the SOP.

The president seems to agree with YOU though,

Obama: IRS actions are 'intolerable and inexcusable' – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/obama-irs-actions-are-intolerable-and-inexcusable/)

Imagine that. I still think this tax designation for political groups is no more than political money laundering. Right, or left. Its also pure hypocrisy that the TParty evades scrutiny because they are the Tparty, and still have stop and frisk for black people and papers please for brown people.

Not harmed ? Many of them had their tax status delayed for months during the election cycle ;diminishing their influence in the political process . Many just quit trying .You who make a big deal about the importance of the election process are saying they weren't harmed ? I'll tell you what it was . It is a real time proven suppression of their rights... 1st amendment ,and 14th amendment equal protection clause.

I still think this tax designation for political groups is no more than political money laundering. Right, or left
With a flat tax no exemptions this would not be an issue.

You don't need a flat tax to eliminate this kind of loophole or money laundering operation. And The Tparty can wait for the process just like anyone else.

You have said that before Tom, and while I applaud your consistency on the matter of church exemptions I think the TParty was not harmed by this extra scrutiny for the same reasons you give about the NAACP was not harmed. They got there tax ID number. Seems the practice was stopped and the wording changed in the SOP.

The president seems to agree with YOU though,

Obama: IRS actions are 'intolerable and inexcusable' – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/14/obama-irs-actions-are-intolerable-and-inexcusable/)

Imagine that. I still think this tax designation for political groups is no more than political money laundering. Right, or left. Its also pure hypocrisy that the TParty evades scrutiny because they are the Tparty, and still have stop and frisk for black people and papers please for brown people.

I'm taking bets that this like everything else under President Zero... becomes a superficial investigation... where they claim they found nothing or at most throw some low level underling under the bus to protect the higher ups.

Not harmed? Franklin Graham believes his organization was targeted, they had to spend donor money that could have gone to hungry children dealing with the IRS. This goes beyond "oh what did it hurt?" This is a complete betrayal of trust. And this is the same agency tasked with enforcing Zerocare.

I'm taking bets that this like everything else under President Zero...becomes a superficial investigation....where they claim they found nothing or at most throw some low level underling under the bus to protect the higher ups.

I would win my bet that this scandal stuff and impeachment rhetoric was to get your base riled up as an excuse to do nothing in the congress. That's sad we have to wait for a jobs bill while you guys investigate old news.

If you were as good at governing and legislating as you were at obstructionism we wouldn't be here as a country and the sequester would be resolved and a job bill passed and implemented.

Great points Tal

I would win my bet that this scandal stuff and impeachment rhetoric was to get your base riled up as an excuse to do nothing in the congress. That's sad we have to wait for a jobs bill while you guys investigate old news.

If you were as good at governing and legislating as you were at obstructionism we wouldn't be here as a country and the sequester would be resolved and a job bill passed and implemented.

Why does YOUR guy deserve any breaks that Nixon didn't get... your guy has done far more and far worse and we've had to listen about Watergate for how many DECADES now?

Nobody even got a paper cut in Watergate... 4 people DIED in BenghaziGate... Huge numbers of Conservatives had their Civil rights violated by the IRS by Democrat hacks working for Obama... and if they hadn't got caught Illegally getting phone records of AP reporters without the required Subpeonas... the leftist press would be brushing that all under the carpet too.


If YOUR guy (The Kenyan Bozo) actually had the competence to do his job, and focused on actually doing it... instead of acting like some drug dealing thug in Chicago... threatening to get even with anyone and everyone that rejects the Boy-Gods birthright to be King.this country might be in far better shape than it is now.

I can't believe this you haven't moved on from forty years ago, why should I be surprised? You haven't moved on from 240 years ago

I can't believe this you haven't moved on from forty years ago, why should I be surprised? you haven't moved on from 240 years ago

When you hear Democrats htrowing that up constantly for the last 40 years... they can expect to get it dished back when their guy gets caught doing far, far worse.

What Nixon did was NOTHING compared to what President Zero has been doing...

Yeah nothing? Spying on the opposition, candidly I don't see the difference excepting he didn't break into a building

As bad as you want that to be true, we know its not and the scandals and impeachments you speak of won't happen. Of course that won't stop you from trying since that's been the republican right wing plan from day one.

Its obvious that this I a distraction while the greedy crooks rob us blind.

It's politics Tal and it never changes, never give a sucker an even break

Tal, odd you keep complaining about how the GOP governs when they're the minority. Your leader thinks governing means a permanent camoaign and image control. How's that working out?

I start to wonder what is politics today photo ops and big speeches and no progress?

You guys are good at clogging up the process, hollering, and throwing rocks when you are in the minority. I give the devil his due.

You guys are good at clogging up the process, hollering, and throwing rocks when you are in the minority. I give the devil his due.

We learned it from the Democrats when Bush was in office. But nobody is as good at playing the Victim as a Democrat is... they raise it to a science.

You guy holler and complain of a sore throat and blame others for forcing something down it.

Learn to shut up sometimes and swallow! Suck it up and carry your own weight. Stop being a doorman for the greedy rich guys robbing u blind.

You guys are good at clogging up the process, hollering, and throwing rocks when you are in the minority. I give the devil his due.

You sure have a short memory. I bet when Dems vowed to do nothing but obstruct and investigate when when they won their Trojan Horse election you were cheering them on. Just giving the devil his due...

THis is WHY it all started.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/31142362.jpg

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003334847/1212130564_obama_lies_xlarge.jpeg

http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1305/the-scope-his-corrupt-negligenceis-staggering-obama-politics-politics-1367634681.jpg

More information has surfaced for the IRS,

IRS Sent Same Letter to Democrats That Fed Tea Party Row - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/irs-sent-same-letter-to-democrats-that-fed-tea-party-row.html)


The Internal Revenue Service, under pressure after admitting it targeted anti-tax Tea Party groups for scrutiny in recent years, also had its eye on at least three Democratic-leaning organizations seeking nonprofit status.

One of those groups, Emerge America, saw its tax-exempt status denied, forcing it to disclose its donors and pay some taxes. None of the Republican groups have said their applications were rejected... In a statement late yesterday, the tax agency said it had pooled together the politically active nonpartisan applicants -- including a “minority” that were identified because of their names. “It is also important to understand that the group of centralized cases included organizations of all political views,” the IRS said in its statement.

To Tom as a matter of clarity.

Daily Kos: The IRS and the Continuing GOP Circus of Hypocrisy (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/14/1209071/-The-IRS-and-the-Continuing-GOP-Circus-of-Hypocrisy)


In 2004 the IRS investigated the tax-exempt status of the NAACP in response to demands by Republican lawmakers who questioned whether the NAACP's activities had crossed into political campaigning, which is prohibited to tax-exempt organizations. The lawmakers included Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee), Sen. Susan M. Collins (R-Maine), Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-South Carolina), Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-Virginia), Rep. Larry Combest (R-Texas), Rep. Robert Ehrlich (R-Maryland) and Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-Florida).
How hypocritical, then, for Collins to be among those “outraged” by this week's revelations of the IRS targeting Tea Party and other conservative groups for investigation of their tax-exempt status. Collins called for a more aggressive response from President Obama to personally condemn the IRS action.

What it comes down to is politicians only want the laws of the land enforced when it doesn't disadvantage them. It was ever so

To Tom as a matter of clarity.

Daily Kos: The IRS and the Continuing GOP Circus of Hypocrisy (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/14/1209071/-The-IRS-and-the-Continuing-GOP-Circus-of-Hypocrisy)

So they acted on the request of some lawmakers . And the IRS found nothing improper . Do you want me to document all the times the Dem lawmakers in the late 1990s did the same thing to conservative organizations ?
Back then the DNC and the Clintonoids published this smear document called 'Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce'.
washingtonpost.com: White House Memo Asserts a Scandal Theory (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/stories/pj011097.htm)
Aka ;the vast right wing conspiracy report.
Well based on that doc. 20 + conservative organizations;including the Heritage Foundation ,Landmark Legal Foundation ,and the American Spectator magazine... and other high profile Clintoon accusers, such as Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers, were audited.
But that was just the warm up . Landmark sued and discovered that over 100 groups were audited at the request of lawmakers and the White House. During discovery, the IRS managed to lose over 114 files requested under FOIA . Not only that , they managed to record over a tape recording that would've implicated them in a clear conspiracy case of targeting conservative .

But that isn't all!! I've already talked about how using the IRS in this manner led to one of the articles of impeachment against Nixon. What you did not hear was how JFK ,and before him Roosevelt used the IRS as a political arm of their administrations. All it took was for Kennedy to utter the words "the discordant voices of extremism" to unleash the dogs. During the same presser Kenne'dy indicated that he expected the IRS to be vigilant in policing the tax-exempt status of questionable organizations. From that the IRS launched the' Ideological Organizations Audit Project'. It targeted right-leaning groups(of course ) .
Kennedy also used the IRS to pressure Steel companies into complying with "voluntary " price controls .

But the kudos goes to the hero of the left FDR. He used the IRS to harass newspaper publishers who were opposed to the New Deal, including William Randolph Hearst .
He attacked political opponents like Huey Long and Father Coughlin with the IRS . He went after former Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon with the IRS weapon. He also squashed an investigation of a political ally when this ally accepted illegal campaign contribution from a government contractor . Sort of nipped it in the bud before it became known to his constituents . Who was this ally ? Lyndon Baines Johnson.

I'll say it again. The best remedy for this is a flat or fair tax that eliminates this government agency for all practical purposes. So long as it is around ,politicians will be tempted to use it as the capo (caporegime ) of the political regime. But instead the Obots granted them tremendous new powers as the main muscle behind Obamacare (aka Zero care ).

There's apparently nothing too scandalous for Tal.

Scandalous is hollering loud and saying nothing and solving no problems. Its even more scandalous to see a problem that's been festering and growing and not addressing it. Yet again repubs are voting to repeal ACA, and no job bill.

That's a major scandal.

PS, from here on in right wing hollering will be referred to as NOISE.

Thank you

Tal is a real Koolaide drinker...

Protect the Messiah at all costs... I don't see his brainwashed whorshippers lining up to jump under the bus for him this time.

You don't see anything beyond your NOISE and paranoia. Its an easy fix if you look at it, and willing to work toward a solution. SHHHHHHHHHHH! Be quiet for a minute. You can't learn anything while you are making such a racket.

Open your eyes Tal... not even the drive by media is giving him a free pass and covering for him any more.

Good news (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/report-head-of-irs-obamacare-office-had-led-tax-exempt-section-91551.html), the lady in charge of the office that targeted conservatives is now in charge of Zerocare at the IRS. As if having the IRS be the Zerocare enforcer wasn't scary enough. .

P.S. Even in the midst of all these abuses of power it's like this administration just can't help but flex their muscles - the "culture of intimidation" lives on...

The Woman responsible for the IRS harassment and civil rights abuse of Conservatives got a $130,000 bonus and got promoted to be in charge of Obamacare...

And people on the left claim Obama doesn't have his hands in this. And that Obamacare won't determine who gets treated and who doesn't by what their political affiliation is.

First off, Obamacare supporters are shocked, shocked I say that employers are looking at bare bones plans that only cover the mandates.


Planning of large chunks of the economy is harder than pro-government advocates usually anticipate. People often respond to new laws or behave in ways that central planners never forsee. In this vein, over at the Cato Institute, Michael Cannon points to yet another factor that ”could make the roll-out of ObamaCare’s health insurance ‘exchanges’ even more of a train wreck.”

While, in theory, Obamacare requires that employers with 50 or more workers must offer coverage to their workers or pay a penalty, the law may only mandates the provision of what amounts to very light coverage. The Wall Street Journal explains:


Benefits advisers and insurance brokers—bucking a commonly held expectation that the law would broadly enrich benefits—are pitching these low-benefit plans around the country. They cover minimal requirements such as preventive services, but often little more. Some of the plans wouldn’t cover surgery, X-rays or prenatal care at all. Others will be paired with limited packages to cover additional services, for instance, $100 a day for a hospital visit.

Federal officials say this type of plan, in concept, would appear to qualify as acceptable minimum coverage under the law, and let most employers avoid an across-the-workforce $2,000-per-worker penalty for firms that offer nothing. Employers could still face other penalties they anticipate would be far less costly.

The money quote from the article...


Several expressed surprise that employers would consider the approach.

“We wouldn’t have anticipated that there’d be demand for these types of band-aid plans in 2014,” said Robert Kocher, a former White House health adviser who helped shepherd the law. “Our expectation was that employers would offer high quality insurance.” Part of the problem: lawmakers left vague the definition of employer-sponsored coverage, opening the door to unexpected interpretations, say people involved in drafting the law.

Words fail me.


Secondly on the Zerocare front, yet another union is not happy (http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/300823-treat-nonprofit-healthcare-fairly#ixzz2Tvz7YuSt).


For decades, unions have negotiated high quality, affordable health insurance through nonprofit Taft-Hartley plans — one of the few reliable private providers for lower income individuals. …

But as currently interpreted, the ACA would block these plans from the law’s benefits (such as the subsidy for lower-income individuals and families) while subjecting them to the law’s penalties (like the $63 per insured person to subsidize Big Insurance). This creates unstoppable incentives for employers to reduce weekly hours for workers currently on our plans and push them onto the exchanges where many will pay higher costs for poorer insurance with a more limited network of providers. In other words, they will be forced to change their coverage and possibly their doctor. Others will be channeled into Medicaid, where taxpayers must pick up the tab. …

But we had to pass the bill to know what was in it you dummies.

First off, Obamacare supporters are shocked, shocked I say that employers are looking at bare bones plans that only cover the mandates.



The money quote from the article...



Words fail me.


Secondly on the Zerocare front, yet another union is not happy (http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/300823-treat-nonprofit-healthcare-fairly#ixzz2Tvz7YuSt).



But we had to pass the bill to know what was in it you dummies.

Let me just remind you how nice it is to live in a free country

What's the surprise Speech? Companies have been pushing to eliminate employee based insurance for decades, along with pensions. Do you think they have either at the sweat shops they open overseas after closing factory's here?

Most of these food workers and retail industry workless than 35 hours a week and have done so like I say for decades. But just be clear, most unions are affiliated with other unions, and have considerable leverage in the health insurance market, and as your link points out, congress can act... oops forget that part... but they can add a few tweaks, like Medicare for everyone.

You may not like the ACA, but the options for consumers is undeniable and better than the way it was already.

Not much on irony are you Tal?

After two weeks of the "I don't know" defense yet another media outlet asks, who's in charge here (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323475304578499293514955294.html?m od=opinion_newsreel)?


Every day brings new revelations about who knew what about the IRS targeting conservative groups during President Obama's re-election campaign, but the overall impression is of a vast federal bureaucracy run amok. While the White House continues to peddle the story of a driverless train wreck, taxpayers are being treated to a demonstration of the dangers of an unwieldy and unaccountable administrative state. Look, Ma, no hands!

Ol' Clint was right...

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1148511.1346381246!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/eastwood-chair.jpg#eastwood%20empty%20chair%20%20635x536

I would say the process on accountability has started with 5 investigations, wouldn't you?

Holding people accountable and them seeing themselves as accountable are two different things

holding people accountable and them seeing themselves as accountable are two different things
Is he blaming others?

Don't know but the idea that the buck stops here seems to have been lost

don't know but the idea that the buck stops here seems to have been lost
Really? I don't get that feeling all.

When he lies and says he didn't know what his closest cabinet officers ,his Chief of Staff,and his own WH counselor knows ,then he is either passing the buck or he is one of the most incompetent boobs who has ever occupied the office. He wants us to believe that he only found out about the AP phone taps when the press started reporting it ? Pullllleeezzz! Eric Holder personally signed off on them . You mean to say he didn't tell the Emperor about it ? You mean to say that his Chief of Staff and Counselor knew about the IRS abuses and neither of them told him ? He should immediately demand their resignations if that's so.

It's more like Nixonian plausible deniabilty .

I would say the process on accountability has started with 5 investigations, wouldn't you?

Think about it.

Last week we learned the Dems were going to run hard on Zerocare for 2014 (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/dems-2014-strategy-own-obamacare-92172.html), the "being a woman is no longer a preexisting condition" strategy, which conveniently also sounds like a continuation of the "war on women" meme.

This week we hear Zerocare popularity is at an all-time low (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/06/18781204-health-care-laws-unpopularity-reaches-new-highs?lite) while Democrats celebrate (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/liberal-myths-751360.html#post3478217) the news that non-group insurance premiums may only go up 146% on some people.

Yesterday, Madame "we gotta pass the bill to know what's in it" Pelosi got in on the Zerocare goalpost shifting (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/06/03/democrats-new-argument-its-a-good-thing-that-obamacare-doubles-individual-health-insurance-premiums/):

irw2W537AsQ


“I don’t remember saying that everybody in the country would have a lower premium.”

Oh but she did (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/pelosi-i-dont-recall-saying-premiums-would-go-down-everybody-under-obamacare_733919.html), last year on July1. “Everybody will have lower rates” said Ms. Pelosi.

Let the spin begin again.

Everyone would if Medicare was expanded to include ALL Americans. That's why most progressives don't like ACA, because it's not comprehensive enough.

Everyone would if Medicare was expanded to include ALL Americans. That's why most progressives don't like ACA, because it's not comprehensive enough.

I get that progressives want it all though I don't get why in the hell ANYONE would trust this government, the government that failed our ambassador and others in Benghazi and lied about it, the government that let thousands of automatic weapons walk leading to the death of a Border Patrol agent and who knows how much violence in Mexico, the government that seized AP's phone records and labeled a reporter a "co-conspirator", the government that targeted conservatives and will soon have our health care info - and snoops on EVERY phone call, email and credit card transactions.

You want us to trust them with our health still? Dude, wake up.

"snoops on EVERY phone call, email and credit card transactions"

Thank the Patriot Act for that.

"snoops on EVERY phone call, email and credit card transactions"

Thank the Patriot Act for that.

So you're OK with this admin's MASSIVE expansion of government snooping and trust same with your healthcare? They certainly have not done anything to earn our trust, or have they?

"snoops on EVERY phone call, email and credit card transactions"

Thank the Patriot Act for that.


Both the Patriot Act and the FISA reauthorization have specific parameters.In other words there are defined limits that the government must comply with to make the search lawful . I would like to see the argument the gvt made to receive a court order this broad.

I certainly don't understand the left's outrage. They support data bases for gun owners .They support the government database of our healthcare . You would think they would just as quickly not care about data mining of everyone's phone and electronic communications .

They support data bases for gun owners - gov is running a background check program

They support the government database of our healthcare - gov is running a healthcare program

data mining of everyone's phone and electonic communications - for what purpose again?

I haven't made up my mind about obamacare yet. I might end up in the "for it before I was against it" category before it's all over.
But as the saga continues and possibly all the negatives get ferreted out, what are the odds that enough Senate Dems will abandon ship (as I believe some already have at least hinted at), to pass a bill to finally kill it, and with enough support to override a veto? 2014 elections will be looming as bill problems or hopefully improvements come to light.
The "if you like your insurance you can keep it- or similar line" seems to be the most glowing untruth to date.
My group insurer -Carefirst of MD has already said that their private non-group rates will increase by 50%, and they (Carefirst) sent us a letter telling us that (in so many words) "don't worry about the new ACA provisions because they won't apply to your present group plan". Is that good news? Or does that mean we are still subject to pre-existing conditions and lifetime or yearly maximums, etc.

And HHS boss Kathlene Sebilius proved the line about the government not getting between the patient and the doctor another falsehood.

Not giving any estimate of how much chance that it could still be killed tom?

I have to ask, IF YOU LIKE YOUR insurance you can keep it. Well lets be honest about do we like it or not. I have watched the price of insurance premiums sky rocket along with the actual costs of hospitals and doctors. Most people have stayed with their employer insurance not because they actually like it, but have little choice. Those that have to buy private insurance pay out the ying yang, and no money no insurance, so you pay for their emergency room visits.

I bet when those tax deductions for the cost of the health care you do like kick in, many will change their tunes. Maybe you can afford BETTER coverage rather than the cheap bare minimum that leaves you broke after you have to actually use it.

The fix, rather than go back to faster rising cost and being dropped when you are sick, is the Medicare for all option. That's the only thing I have against the ACA, it still leaves insurance companies in the middle of our health care needs. And that's expensive whether you like your insurance companies or not because the giants have carved up the country and control prices for their own bottom line.

Most people are finding out their insurance is junk any way, so like is the wrong word. Scammed would fit better. So the fact your costs are going up has nothing to do with the ACA in the first place. They have been going up for decades any way.

I doubt we go back to the way it was before ACA. Even repub governors who hollered before are embracing Medicaid expansion, and that's a part of the ACA too.

... I bet when those tax deductions for the cost of the health care you do like kick in, many will change their tunes. Maybe you can afford BETTER coverage rather than the cheap bare minimum that leaves you broke after you have to actually use it.

The fix, rather than go back to faster rising cost and being dropped when you are sick, is the Medicare for all option. That's the only thing I have against the ACA, it still leaves insurance companies in the middle of our health care needs. And that's expensive whether you like your insurance companies or not because the giants have carved up the country and control prices for their own bottom line.

Most people are finding out their insurance is junk any way, so like is the wrong word. Scammed would fit better. So the fact your costs are going up has nothing to do with the ACA in the first place. They have been going up for decades any way.

I doubt we go back to the way it was before ACA. Even repub governors who hollered before are embracing Medicaid expansion, and that's a part of the ACA too.

That if you like it thing has already been proven wrong, Tal so don't insult us with line any more. But I see you've adopted Pelosi's Orwellian meme.





Well, some people don’t have health insurance, and certainly will have their premiums go up, because they don’t have health insurance now so they don’t have any premiums now. But for anyone that that is a challenge there are subsidies in the exchanges, and it’s also about what you get for the money. In other words, people will getting no lifetime or annual limits on their coverage, no discrimination because of preexisting medical condition. It has a whole array of quality that is in the legislation. But, if you don’t have health insurance and you don’t qualify for a subsidy and you’re mandated to have health insurance, yes, you will have an increase. We’re very sensitive to what it means for young people, especially young singles, and there are policies that people can get. I don’t remember saying that everybody in the country would have a lower premium, because everybody in the country doesn’t have health insurance, so how could it be lower. But the fact is, the value of what you get for the cost that you pay is a reduction is a reduction in cost to you. And if you don’t have insurance, you’re going to pay something that you didn’t pay before, but if you can’t afford it, you can have a subsidy… For everybody, it is going to be, again, a liberation, a freedom…

You like your insurance so why can't YOU keep it?

You like your insurance so why can't YOU keep it?

Obviously you're a true believer in spite of overwhelming evidence, but shame on you for trying to scam others into believing it.

You didn't answer the question instead you admonish me. That's not how we debate and exchange ideas!

Now why don't you answer a simple question?

Example: Joe works for XYZ builders. XYZ has 47 employees and provides group coverage which Joe likes.
New healthcare law takes effect. XYZ realizes that their competitors are not required to provide coverage so they decide to follow suit.
Or if more than 50 employees, XYZ analyzes and discovers that it is more cost effective to pay the
$ 3,000 (approx.) per employee fee and let its employees get insurance through exchanges.
Either way, Joe liked his insurance but he can't keep it.

Either way, Joe liked his insurance but he can't keep it.
Why can't Joe buy insurance from that same company on his own?

My son buys his own health insurance from a nationally-recognized company. His premiums have gone up from time to time over the years, but it is still very affordable.

Example: Joe works for XYZ builders. XYZ has 47 employees and provides group coverage which Joe likes.
New healthcare law takes effect. XYZ realizes that their competitors are not required to provide coverage so they decide to follow suit.
Or if more than 50 employees, XYZ analyzes and discovers that it is more cost effective to pay the
$ 3,000 (approx.) per employee fee and let its employees get insurance through exchanges.
Either way, Joe liked his insurance but he can't keep it.

That's a business decision by employers who haven't raised your paycheck over the years either, while their costs have gone up too for your health care before the ACA, and its real effects have even started for those that have. So if they no longer offer benefits to employees will YOU be compensated for the loss of those benefits?

Of course you won't. They know that too as they cut hours and benefits. That's why I asked do you really like your health care benefits?

Or do you like just having it? Is the benefits a fit for your own situation? Has Joe ever used it and what are his options. Even if you like what you have, you may be swayed by a better option. Insurance companies know that too!

If Joe has never used his insurance, how does he know if he likes it, or not?

Hello again,

Regrettably, I don't believe ANYTHING from the people who brought us death panels. Rational discussion with those folks has been proven impossible.

If the law needs to be tweaked, then it'll be tweaked. I'm sure the Democrats will have to do that on their own too. But, it's the LAW OF THE LAND, and won't be repealed no matter HOW many times Republicans try.

excon

In my case, I could do so (keep the insurance COMPANY I have) for at least a 50% increase in premium, probably a lot more to get coverage anywhere near the benefits of the present group plan. The article that announced Carefirst's estimate that individual policies would increase 50%, was concerning private customers. Their private coverage could be 100% more than my group coverage now, so maybe it would cost me 3 times the premium I pay now.
Also, Joe may have family coverage now and according to articles linked by others during the discussion on this question previously, his company may only have to provide coverage for their employee, not his dependents. Does that constitute he or his family keeping the coverage they liked?
But that wouldn't be keeping the insurance I had, it would be keeping the insurance company I had.
You mean that obama was saying - you can keep the insurance company you had but it might cost you and arm and a leg to do so?
So, you think that what he meant to say was: if you like the insurance that you have now, you can keep it but it might bankrupt you and maybe your wife and kids will have no coverage.
Obama is the same as everyone else, they have to pass the bill, see how it is interpreted, see what regulations are implemented, see what loopholes were left in the bill, and see how different insurance companies react to it, etc---to find out what is in it. But when folks heard him say -if you like your insurance you can keep it--they thought that was what he meant. I do nothing, I keep what I have.

Regrettably, I don't believe ANYTHING from the people who brought us death panels. Rational discussion with those folks has been proven impossible.

Let me introduce you to the head of the death panel
Sebelius Won't Help Dying Girl: 'Someone Lives And Someone Dies' - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChXWA4UbGJ4)

Republican judge saves Sarah Murnaghan from death panel bureaucrats | Washington Times Communities (http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/tygrrrr-express/2013/jun/5/republican-judge-saves-sarah-murnaghan-death-panel/)

I believe this is a case of a bureaucrat getting between the patient and the doctor... something the Emperor said would not happen under Obamacare.

In my case, I could do so (keep the insurance COMPANY I have) for at least a 50% increase in premium, probably a lot more to get coverage anywhere near the benefits of the present group plan. The article that announced Carefirst's estimate that individual policies would increase 50%, was concerning private customers. Their private coverage could be 100% more than my group coverage now, so maybe it would cost me 3 times the premium I pay now.
Also, Joe may have family coverage now and according to articles linked by others during the discussion on this question previously, his company may only have to provide coverage for their employee, not his dependents. Does that constitute he or his family keeping the coverage they liked?
But that wouldn't be keeping the insurance I had, it would be keeping the insurance company I had.
You mean that obama was saying - you can keep the insurance company you had but it might cost you and arm and a leg to do so?
So, you think that what he meant to say was: if you like the insurance that you have now, you can keep it but it might bankrupt you and maybe your wife and kids will have no coverage.
Obama is the same as everyone else, they have to pass the bill, see how it is interpreted, see what regulations are implemented, see what loopholes were left in the bill, and see how different insurance companies react to it, etc---to find out what is in it. But when folks heard him say -if you like your insurance you can keep it--they thought that was what he meant. I do nothing, I keep what I have.

I think we each have a responsibility to look at what we have objectively, and weigh our options before we just say we like what we have. Doesn't matter what you think he said or meant, just what it meant to you.

Hope, Joe doesn't find out like many that he didn't have what he thought he had. "Trust but verify".

You didn't answer the question instead you admonish me. That's not how we debate and exchange ideas!

Now why don't you answer a simple question?

As if whining about our hollering every post is debate?

I think we each have a responsibility to look at what we have objectively, and weigh our options before we just say we like what we have. Doesn't matter what you think he said or meant, just what it meant to you.

Hope, Joe doesn't find out like many that he didn't have what he thought he had. "Trust but verify".

There is no reason to trust this government.

Not surprising from a conservative in a political debate. Nor should my more progressive ideas surprise you. :)

Not surprising from a conservative in a political debate. Nor should my more progressive ideas surprise you. :)

So progressive means passing laws without knowing what's in it, hoping for the best and defending the worst? I can respect your ideas but not your denial of the disaster unfolding.

What disasters?

Have you not been reading the thread? It's obvious.

Hello again, Steve:

Have you not been reading the thread? It's obvious.Obvious? To who? All I hear is you wingers mis-characterizing the law like you have been from the get go. Ain't nothing new here... Yawnnn.

Excon

Hello again, Steve:
Obvious?? To who? All I hear is you wingers mis-characterizing the law like you have been from the get go. Ain't nothing new here... Yawnnn.

excon

Just reporting the news, premiums skyrocketing, policies will be canceled, it's more unpopular than ever... does that sand taste good?

Hello again, Steve:

Like your knee jerks about the IRS, your knee jerks when you read right wing media about Obamacare.

I, on the other hand, and willing to let things play out. Obamacare hasn't been implemented yet.. AFTER it is, if it's the disaster you say, we'll ALL know it.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Like your knee jerks about the IRS, your knee jerks when you read right wing media about Obamacare.

I, on the other hand, and willing to let things play out. Obamacare hasn't been implemented yet.. AFTER it is, if it's the disaster you say, we'll ALL know it.

excon

Nice yet unrealistic try, but the LA Times is not owned by the Kochs yet and no one can (rationally) accuse NBC or Politico of being "right wing media." For a guy who used to be so skeptical about government you sure have become a true believer.

"I, on the other hand, and willing to let things play out. Obamacare hasn't been implemented yet.. AFTER it is, if it's the disaster you say, we'll ALL know it. "

Sounds like the Bush/Cheney plan for the Iraq war, ex.

Here's another way it's playing out so far...

Hundreds in government had advance word of Medicare action at heart of trading-spike probe (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hundreds-in-government-had-advance-word-of-medicare-action-at-heart-of-trading-spike-probe/2013/06/09/044944d0-cec7-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_print.html)

Is anyone minding the store? Anyone, anyone?

They probably got furloughed.

Hello tal:


They probably got furloughed.Hee, hee.

Excon

So inside info, i.e. an illegal, unfair advantage in the market, for HHS workers is a joke to you?

Oh the irony...


Obamacare? We were just leaving …

Dozens of lawmakers and aides are so afraid that their health insurance premiums will skyrocket next year thanks to Obamacare that they are thinking about retiring early or just quitting.

The fear: Government-subsidized premiums will disappear at the end of the year under a provision in the health care law that nudges aides and lawmakers onto the government health care exchanges, which could make their benefits exorbitantly expensive.

Democratic and Republican leaders are taking the issue seriously, but first they need more specifics from the Office of Personnel Management on how the new rule should take effect — a decision that Capitol Hill sources expect by fall, at the latest. The administration has clammed up in advance of a ruling, sources on both sides of the aisle said.

If the issue isn’t resolved, and massive numbers of lawmakers and aides bolt, many on Capitol Hill fear it could lead to a brain drain just as Congress tackles a slew of weighty issues — like fights over the Tax Code and immigration reform.

The problem is far more acute in the House, where lawmakers and aides are generally younger and less wealthy. Sources said several aides have already given lawmakers notice that they’ll be leaving over concerns about Obamacare. Republican and Democratic lawmakers said the chatter about retiring now, to remain on the current health care plan, is constant.

(Also on POLITICO: Poll finds low Obamacare support)

Rep. John Larson, a Connecticut Democrat in leadership when the law passed, said he thinks the problem will be resolved.

“If not, I think we should begin an immediate amicus brief to say, ‘Listen this is simply not fair to these employees,’” Larson told POLITICO. “They are federal employees.”

Republicans, never a fan of Democratic health care reform, are more vocal about the potential adverse effects of the provision.

“It’s a reality,” said Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas). “This is the law. … It’s going to hinder our ability with retention of members, it’s going to hinder our ability for members to take care of their families.” He said his fellow lawmakers are having “quiet conversations” about the threat.

Read more: Obamacare? We were just leaving (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/obamacare-lawmakers-health-insurance-92691.html#ixzz2W7bTIpRb)


I guess that's one plus for Obamacare, maybe it'll send of those old entrenched coots home.

Knowing that the Dems would be slaughtered in the 2014 elections if the implementation of the employer mandate went in effect this fall as planned , the emperor has decreed that employers will not have to comply until After the 2014 election.

Republican former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin called the move “deviously brilliant,” by removing a potential electoral impediment from in front of congressional Democrats before the midterms.

“Democrats no longer face the immediate specter of running against the fallout from a heavy regulatory imposition on employers across the land,” Holtz-Eakin wrote. “Explaining away the mandate was going to be a big political lift; having the White House airbrush it from the landscape is way better.”

Obama Administration Delays Health Care Law Employer Penalty Until 2015 | TIME.com (http://swampland.time.com/2013/07/02/obama-administration-delays-healthcare-law-employer-penalty-until-2015/)

Interesting system you have where legislation can be altered by decree

That's because we have an emperor... but I'm guessing that somewhere in the 2000 pages of cr@p sandwich that is the Obamacare law,there is a provisions that gives the executive broad powers of interpretation and implementation. Not to worry ,without reading the law Congress passed it ,the emperor signed it ,and SCOTUS said it was cool to redefine a penalty as just another tax.

But it is a tax the star chamber said so it is a tax on everyone who doesn't have insurance. Here we are more open about this, if you don't have insurance the ATO our equivalent of the IRS will collect a levy from you as part of your tax bill. It doesn't matter whether you have insurance, or not, you will still get care but don't need an operation any time soon because the queue forms on the right for anything but life threatening

Hello again,

Look! It's Obamacare...

But it is a tax the star chamber said so it is a tax on everyone who doesn't have insurance. Here we are more open about this, if you don't have insurance the ATO our equivalent of the IRS will collect a levy from you as part of your tax bill. It doesn't matter whether you have insurance, or not, you will still get care but don't need an operation any time soon because the queue forms on the right for anything but life threatening

Here is the deal.. the personal mandate has not been extended . But the Dems have come under pressure from business to extend the mandate that applies to businesses . The Dems are concerned about campaign contributions drying up from business... thus the extension.

Here is the deal .. the personal mandate has not been extended . But the Dems have come under pressure from business to extend the mandate that applies to businesses . The Dems are concerned about campaign contributions drying up from business ... thus the extention.

If I hear you correctly partisanship has been demonstrated in an extradinary way. The democrats are buying the support of their political opposition or maybe not. Extraordinarily even handed but undemocratic, if you will pardon thye pun

The democrats are buying the support of their political opposition That would assume that the Dems aren't eyeball deep in the cronyism .That of course would be a false assumption despite their rhetoric.

The horrible effects of Obamacare are being demonstrated in the June jobs report. 195,000 payroll jobs were added , while the unemployment rate stayed at 7.6% .This is being touted as a good report.
But if you look at it a little closer the real story emerges. First ;if we continue to increase jobs at a rate of 200,000 or less then the unemployment rate will remain at or near 7.6% .

What is really scary about the report is that almost ALL of the jobs created were part time work. The full time work force actually shrunk. So far this year the number of part time jobs has climbed by 557,000.By contrast, the number of full time U.S. workers fell by 240,000 in June.
College graduates continue to get hammered . 45% of recent graduates have jobs that do not require college degrees... and those are the lucky ones who have jobs. The unemployment rate for 18- 29-year olds is 16.1%... and it would be higher if the 1.7 million who have dropped out of the labor force entirely were counted .

So what happened ? Didn't stimulus work ? Didn't the Feds QE efforts do the job ? No!. and to add salt to the wound ,Obamacare ;specifically the employer mandate that requires businesses with 50 or more full time employees to offer health insurance to employees ,or pay a $2,000 penalty per worker,encourages the creation of part time work over the creation of full time . The law also defines a full time job as 30 hours a week.

Tuesday the Obots announced they were postponing this employer mandate until after the 2014 midterm elections in the hope that will encourage more full time hiring; and prevent the Dems from taking a political hit for this disastrous law. But thousands of businesses, especially in retail and fast food, have already started to cap employment for many workers at 30 hours.They know this reprieve is for only one year. So if the Obots really want to change this dynamic ,they would introduce legislation to repeal the employer mandate.

Hey Tom I hear a whole lot of whinging here, we have seen figures like this for a long time it's the new millennium and in the new millennium employment isn't going to be the way it was, you need to get used to it because this is the damage which your wonderful job creator 1% did to the economy when they exported the jobs to China and India, to Mexico and who knows where. This is the result of all the free trade B/S you have swallowed and we are there right along with you except we are maybe twenty years ahead on the other side of reconstruction. The stimulus only stopped you from sinking further. You have to face the fact that you have an education industry that is training people for jobs that may never be there, that is last century's dream. Suddenly someone realised that the cash cow is dry. Structurally you have a lot of work to do and it entails change, it is a an aweful scary word because you cannot define the world of the future

So when did the president get to unilaterally decide which laws or parts thereof to implement?

Hello again, tom:


the horrible effects of Obamacare are being demonstrated in the June jobs report. Nahhh... It's sequestration.. You remember that piece of garbage you forced down our throats...

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

So when did the president get to unilaterally decide which laws or parts thereof to implement?If you believe a cop on the street has the authority to let a speeder go, then the TOP COP in the land can do the same thing.

Excon

Stop ignoring the obvious, It's the businesses that follow the broken business model of capitalism, pursuing cheap expendable workers with low wages that are affected the most. Of course righty's blame government for the actions of those businesses that want to extract MO" MONEY from the backs of their workers, and give those same people a free pass for greedy behavior.

You guys want Obamacare to fail, and go back to the old ways of corporate gouging that leads to high profits, and low wages, and tight job market. Like I say a broken business model, so stop blaming government for what the 1% is doing to the economy.

Hello again, Steve:
If you believe a cop on the street has the authority to let a speeder go, then the TOP COP in the land can do the same thing.

excon

And if it were Bush?

Stop ignoring the obvious, Its the businesses that follow the broken business model of capitalism, pursuing cheap expendable workers with low wages that are affected the most. Of course righty's blame government for the actions of those businesses that want to extract MO" MONEY from the backs of their workers, and give those same people a free pass for greedy behavior.

You guys want Obamacare to fail, and go back to the old ways of corporate gouging that leads to high profits, and low wages, and tight job market. Like I say a broken business model, so stop blaming government for what the 1% is doing to the economy.

A) Ask the individuals that will still be affected by the individual mandate here in a shirt while.

B) Your guys ARE the 1 percent.

C) I don't want government involved in my health care, they f*** everything up. The train wreck that is the implementation of Obamacare should be your first clue, but instead of stopping the train you guys insist on heading right to derailment and taking everyone with you.

As opposed to us doing NOTHING, or going back to the old ways none of us could afford? That's really your solution?

Hello again, tom:

Nahhh... It's sequestration.. You remember that piece of garbage you forced down our throats...

excon

First time I've heard the word sequestration in weeks since the fraud of the panic over it has subsided, and we learned it wasn't the end of the world for government to have to live on a set budget like the rest of the people. But what government budgets have to do with government polices that encourage part time employment over full time is not clear .

Hello again, Steve:

Ask the individuals that will still be affected by the individual mandate here in a shirt while. And, then ask him again after he gets sick.

Excon

Hello again, tom:

first time I've heard the word sequestration in weeks since the fraud of the panic over it has subsided,When you LIKE the result, it's government on a budget.. When it lays off military contractors, as it's about to do, sequestration is Obama's idea.

I understand. Perfectly.

Excon

Its not government policies that are affecting business. It's the business policies that makes part time an alternative to full time. Anything not to raise wages on minimum wage workers, and keep them working poor and let the states and local governments bear the cost.

Go ahead you conservatives keep backing the rich taking from the poor, for profit. Maybe the ones who need to opt for the state exchanges are employers, since they have always touted benefits in lieu of wages as a bargaining chip, but now balk about delivering benefits, without wage increases and going for less hours.

To be clear though that the latest accommodation to business crying about REPORTING issues is an easy fix they don't want to do because they would have to reveal interest on withholding payroll taxes and the fees they collect from employees with electronic direct deposit an arrangement with big banks to extract loot from low wage employees that's in court as we speak.

Pa. McDonald's franchise sued over debit card pay plan to offer paper checks, direct deposit - Washington Post (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-01/business/40300806_1_payroll-debit-bank-accounts-paper-checks)

Cry me a river about the broken business model you capitalist refuse to fix.

It's the business policies that makes part time an alternative to full time
Naahh ;all over the country businesses are making the call to either ;reduce staffing to under 50 employees ,hire part timers and temps to cover their workforce needs ,or absorb the costs of the mandates and government burdensome regulations and risk going out of business as a result. How longer are you going to carry water for these fools who are working with outdated and flawed 1930s models of economics?

outdated and flawed 1930s models of economics?
What's the 2013 model?

All I see is the left doing things and the right doing things that look like they are working against each other but really if you look at the overview they are working hand in hand. 1 example the right passed NAFTA. Now the right is complaining about the problem of being over run with illegals that will vote for Obama but who set the stage!

How much closer will we be to a single payer system in 2014?
Wasn't that really the plan all along?
Nancy tried to tell us.
Instead of paying for it just in additional taxes, we will pay for it in additional taxes and higher premiums for our existing coverage.
Won't those folks who work for companies that don't offer healthcare coverage already have coverage through the exchanges if (big if) and when employer mandated coverage takes effect in 2015? Will employers try to lure them back? Why would the employers want to do that? Will they be required to pay the penalty for an employee who by then will already have insurance via an exchange?
Joe Biden told obama that this was a big f'in deal back when it was passed. And Joe knows this latest move was also a big (totally planned) deal too.

Hello again, tom:
When you LIKE the result, it's government on a budget.. When it lays off military contractors, as it's about to do, sequestration is Obama's idea.

I understand. Perfectly.

excon

The military was responsibly cutting it's budget long before the sequester kicked in . You see ;the military cuts are the only ones the left apporoves of.. As you will recall ,I have often said there was room for military cuts . Like ALL the Federal Government bureaucracies ,there is plenty of fat to trim.

The new immigration bill is loaded with pork for military contractors. None of this impacts already poor people, the jobless or those kids you make poor women have. All this while you make health insurance unavailable for the folks you lay off, and cut hours.

It's your side's plan ;and for that matter ,so is the immigration bill.

That's the problem the last 5 years, we come up with plans, and you guys have none that make sense except to very rich guy. Obstruct, repeal, and no plan is the right wing plan. Then you follow it up with see how bad their plan is.

Your side is fooling no one.

We haven't given you a plan for immigration ? Yes we did . As for health care... all it needed was tweeking ,not an overhaul .Why would you think we would do anything to assist you destroy the health care system?. and destroy it you are well on your way of mission accomplished .

You think I don't see through this "delay " ? smearcase just told you exactly what this is about . Employers have been given a carte blanche by YOUR President to drop employees ,penalty free ,and force them onto these exchanges (remember YOUR President did not makes the same exception for the individual mandate ).

Now you will blame employers for making a sound business decision ;,and give YOUR President a pass for the destruction of the American health care system ,in their goal of creating a top down single payer socialist system .I will proudly support obstruct and repeal .

You're mad

Your side is a real card, giving health insurance to low income working poor men, woman, elderly, and children is destroying the American health care system? Passing health care costs to poor and elderly with a voucher isn't? Defunding "meals on wheels" is good for the economy?

Yeah really great ideas. Have you asked low income working poor men, woman, elderly, and children, what they think of your plan? Or do you proudly obstruct and repeal them too?

As opposed to us doing NOTHING, or going back to the old ways none of us could afford? That's really your solution?

You guys whine and moan about state involvement in a woman's "health" care and just about every other aspect of our lives in one breath then demand it in the next. Make up your minds, but leave me out of it.

P. S. More evidence of the coming train wreck, subsidies are going on the honor system. What could go wrong?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/352803/obamacares-invitation-fraud-yuval-levin

More good news, cities and possibly states are going to be ditching retiree health coverage and dumping them on the Obamacare exchanges.

Troubled Cities See Exchanges as Way to Unload Retirees - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/troubled-cities-see-exchanges-as-way-to-unload-retirees.html)

Good thing it's going on the honor system for those who make too much for a subsidy but can't afford coverage.

A Houston doctor with 5,000 patients is going to close shop. Here he explains why .

Houston Area Doctor's Office Closing Its Doors on Account of the ACA - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VBzWHTMHvs)

He's not the only one who will be going Gault in the near future.

Hello again, righty's:

Anytime you want to suggest how to fix it, instead of just b1tching, I'll be here.

excon

Hello again, righty's:

Anytime you wanna suggest how to fix it, instead of just b1tching, I'll be here.

excon

Been there, done that but this is what we have and your guys are in charge, going full steam ahead to disaster. I don't want to be on that train but you're intent on taking me down with you so you're damn right I'm going to b!tch about it since you won't do anything about it.

you won't do anything about it.Hello again, Steve:

Been there, done that. From the git go, my health plan has been Medicare for all. That'll take a page of law. I never did like the bones he threw your way, only to have you reject them. But, make no mistake, it's the BONES that are getting stuck in our craw..

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

Been there, done that. My health plan has ALWAYS been Medicare for all. That'll take a page of law. I never did like the bones he threw your way, only to have you reject them.

excon

Yep, and that's where they want to take us but I don't like ANY plan that has the federal government in charge. They do such a swell job with everything, why wouldn't I love their health care?

The TParty distrust of government is duly noted. I don't trust 'em either. I don't trust the guys that holler and throw rocks much either. Not you personally, mind you a we are both honest law abiding Texans with different opinions and we both agree(?) somebody has got to do something> Medicare for all I my idea, what your beside agreeing with a doctor with 5000patient and he can't make a buck?

He may be a great doctor, but a lousy businessman.

Let's see what 'bones ' have been delayed or eliminated .
1. the 1099 tax form provision... was that our idea ? Nah
2. the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act(CLASS) . This classless act was so bad that Sebelius lobbied for it's elimination.. . was that our idea ? Nah
3.Small Business Health Option Program (SHOP). This one was designed to give choice to small business employees . There was probably some conservative input into this but the Obots screwed it up so badly that the whole program was postponed ,and will probably never see the light of day. So small business employees will in fact have NO options... that is the ones lucky enough to not be consigned to part-time status.. and forced to join the exchanges... of which most states are not close to completing .

4.Instead now with the 4th disaster that is OBamacare... those workers will be subject to the individual mandate ,and will be forced to either sign up for very expensive private insurance ;join the non-existent exchanges ;or pay the penalty (oops I mean tax) .
No this plan is not single payer... instead ,it was designed to fail so that the American people would consider single payer the only alternative.

The TParty distrust of government is duly noted. I don't trust 'em either. I don't trust the guys that holler and throw rocks much either. Not you personally, mind you a we are both honest law abiding Texans with different opinions and we both agree(?) somebody has got to do something> Medicare for all I my idea, what your beside agreeing with a doctor with 5000patient and he can't make a buck?

He may be a great doctor, but a lousy businessman.

Do you want him to be a businessman or a doctor? I'd say a 40 year practice was fairly successful, but you'll note he didn't start going under until after Obamacare passed. He isn't the exception as we've shown many times. A whole lot of doctors suddenly not being able to afford to stay in business is no coincidence and they all didn't suddenly turn into lousy businessmen.

You also missed the part where he wanted no part of a system where bureaucrats and politicians that have no idea what's best for his patients are running the show. I could only hope every doctor in America had such scruples.

The TParty distrust of government is duly noted. I don't trust 'em either. I don't trust the guys that holler and throw rocks much either. Not you personally, mind you a we are both honest law abiding Texans with different opinions and we both agree(?) somebody has got to do something> Medicare for all I my idea, what your beside agreeing with a doctor with 5000patient and he can't make a buck?

He may be a great doctor, but a lousy businessman.

Now let's think about it . He is forced to run his practice like an accountant with a regulatory compliance staff mostly to accurately handle Medicare /Medicaid billing. Meanwhile the Obots have been squeezing docs who take Medicare patients paying less for their services. But you think it is a good idea that the nation go 100% Medicare ? The smart doctors refuse to accept Medicare patients already .