SCOTUS hasn't ruled on all aspects .They haven't as an example ruled on the 14th Amendment equal protection clause violations of the emperor's waivers .
They haven't ruled on all the 1st amendment religious freedom violations .They haven't ruled on the 2nd amendment violations of a defacto back door gun registry by doctors . They haven't ruled on the
4th and 5th amendment violations of the Fed Government having access to your bank accounts to make sure that you are paying your Obamacare premiums .They haven't ruled on the 8th amendment violation of excess fines. And I'm sure there's more if I think hard enough. Since there is this stupid 'standing' rule ;no cases can be heard until there is an injured person who has standing to bring a case. That means the law has to be enacted before many of the cases coming are filed .

let me see if I get this right, it's legal until it's not, so constitutional rights exist only if the SCOTUS says so, I would have expected it was encumbrent upon legislators and the POTUS to avoid contravening the constitution in the first place

I would have expected it was encumbrent upon legislators and the POTUS to avoid contravening the constitution in the first place
Indeed .

Apparently insurance provided to the Federal work force may not comply with the min. Obamacare standards.

The Obama administration has told Vista volunteers and other AmeriCorps workers that their government-provided health coverage does not measure up to the standards of the new health care law, and that they may be subject to financial penalties unless they obtain insurance elsewhere.

The notice has surprised and worried workers in AmeriCorps, the federal community service program that is often described as a domestic version of the Peace Corps.

Mary Strasser, the director of AmeriCorps’ Vista program, described the changes in a bulletin to members on Dec. 16.

The coverage provided by the agency — the AmeriCorps Health Care Benefits Plan — “does not satisfy the individual responsibility requirement of the Affordable Care Act,” which takes effect on Jan. 1, Ms. Strasser said. Accordingly, she said, Vista members may be required to pay a tax penalty if they do not have other coverage and do not receive an exemption.

The impact on community service workers is another unanticipated consequence of the health care law, which is making coverage available at little or no cost to many uninsured people but disrupting coverage for others who already had it.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/27/us/vista-workers-told-their-us-health-plan-fails-test.html

AmeriCorps members say their existing coverage, which pays for doctors' services, hospital care and prescription drugs, meets most of their needs. However, according to the members' handbook, “AmeriCorps does not provide benefits for any diagnosis that is considered a pre-existing condition,” and the coverage for preventive care appears to be less than the law requires.

Sarah L. Sklaw, a 22-year-old Vista member from New York City, said: “I really support the Affordable Care Act, and I don't want to be a naysayer. But it was surprising and frustrating to be told that our health coverage would not meet the law's standards, especially because the Corporation for National and Community Service told us at orientation in August that we did not need to worry about the issue.”

Other AmeriCorps members said they occasionally needed more extensive coverage to pay for treatment of pre-existing conditions or injuries requiring specialty care, and they noted that some members did dangerous work, such as fighting wildfires or building trails on steep mountains.

Equal application and treatment under the law. You saying they shouldn't be treated equally? Or adequately covered just because they volunteer? Or all of us shouldn't have to make adjustments for a better quality product from insurance companies?

The shame is the federal government had an inadequate program in the first place for so long.

don't worry .I smell another emperor exemption .

Or extension since the agency never bothered to make any plans to change what they were doing.

In other words, still finding out what's in obamacare because the emperor keeps changing it to cover his a$$.

Considering the haphazard way republicans implement their voting laws, and abortion restrictions there is little room to validate your own one way criticism.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor has ordered a delay in the implementing of the birth control mandate . Sotomayor acted on a request for an emergency stay from the Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged.

Naturally the tone deaf administration still defends the mandate as only Democrats can.

"The president believes that no one, including the government or for-profit corporations, should be able to dictate those decisions to women,” Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said last month.

Aren't they dictating choices to these nuns? Aren't they women, too?

The administration has until Friday to respond. Let it go to court.

Hello again,

Four states are responsible (http://www.upworthy.com/four-states-are-responsible-for-one-fourth-of-americas-uninsured-is-yours-one-of?c=bl3) for ONE FOURTH of America's uninsured. Can you guess which ones? I'll bet you can.

The governors of Texas, Florida, South Carolina and Louisiana are rejecting Obamacare saying their uninsured don't need any help. These stated combined, add up to one fourth of the nations uninsured.

I suppose there ARE good reasons why these governors did this. Can you relate some?

excon

Hello again,

Four states are responsible (http://www.upworthy.com/four-states-are-responsible-for-one-fourth-of-americas-uninsured-is-yours-one-of?c=bl3) for ONE FOURTH of America's uninsured. Can you guess which ones? I'll bet you can.

The governors of Texas, Florida, South Carolina and Louisiana are rejecting Obamacare saying their uninsured don't need any help. These stated combined, add up to one fourth of the nations uninsured.

I suppose there ARE good reasons why these governors did this. Can you relate some?

excon

I take issue with the assertion that they are "saying their uninsured don't need any help." That's a bullsh*t argument if I ever saw one.

P.S. I see no supporting evidence either, just numbers pulled from their a$$ as far as I know.

Removed due to site bugs. Kind of like healthcare.gov.

Ex asked for information not rock throwing. So tell him what your state does for uninsured poor people.

ex was throwing the rocks, if you don't want them thrown back don't start off with a bullsh*t unsupported, trap question.

Upworthy is a website for viral content started in March 2012 by Eli Pariser, the former executive director of MoveOn, and Peter Koechley, the former managing editor of The Onion. One of Facebook's co-founders, Chris Hughes, was an early investor. It is dedicated to publicizing progressive narratives
Upworthy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upworthy)

In other words just so much progressive propaganda, aka bullsh*t.

the article had the look of Onion content .

Hello again,

So, right wing rags like the Free Beacon is gospel, whereas a left leaner is not to be taken seriously... I got it. I really understand.

I'm STILL blown away that you compared that blog to the NY Times.

excon

I didn't compare them ;you did. But that was one of many sources I could've used for what I wrote.
I could've just as easily used NPR if that makes the story more legit for ya.
Consulate Attack Preplanned, Libya's President Says : NPR (http://www.npr.org/2012/09/16/161228170/consulate-attack-preplanned-libya-s-president-says)

Hello again,

So, right wing rags like the Free Beacon is gospel, whereas a left leaner is not to be taken seriously... I got it. I really understand.

I'm STILL blown away that you compared that blog to the NY Times.

excon

I don't recall having ever used the Free Beacon as gospel for anything but I'd give at least a little more credibility to an outfit that actually does journalism than one dedicated to a "progressive narrative."

There is no governor saying "their uninsured don't need any help", that's just one of those progressive narratives.

Speaking of progressive narratives, the WH responded to Sotomayor's injunction.


“We defer to the Department of Justice on litigation matters, but remain confident that our final rules strike the balance of providing women with free contraceptive coverage while preventing non-profit religious employers with religious objections to contraceptive coverage from having to contract, arrange, pay, or refer for such coverage,” a White House official said. …

In other words, "even though we've extended all manner of exemptions and accommodations to our preferred interests to cover our own a$$es, this is all the CYA you're going to get so shut the hell up and like it."

Or as Politico put it, the Messiah said "the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulations are fair — and they don’t really hurt the Denver-based religious organization that got a temporary New Year’s Eve reprieve from Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor."

Because as we all know they know more about remaining true to one's faith than a bunch of silly old nuns, and anyway "that damned constitution doesn't' matter anyway."

Read more: White House stands by birth-control rule - Jonathan Allen - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/obamacare-birth-control-mandate-101673.html#ixzz2pHKItbjk)

I see they are still going with the false progressive narrative that it's "free" contraceptives.

I'm shocked.....shocked !!! (would use the sarcasm font if I could figure out how to do it)
headline ....Study: Expanding Medicaid doesn’t reduce ER trips. It increases them

The research, published Thursday in the journal Science, showed a 40 percent increase in emergency department visits among those low-income adults in Oregon who gained Medicaid coverage in 2008 through a state lottery. This runs counter to some health-care law supporters' hope that Medicaid coverage would decrease this type of costly medical care, by making it easier for low income adults to see primary care providers.

Study: Expanding Medicaid doesn't reduce ER trips. It increases them. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/02/study-expanding-medicaid-doesnt-reduce-er-trips-it-increases-them/)

....when Congress was debating the Affordable Care Act in 2009, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius cited (http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2009pres/07/20090715b.html) the high number of uninsured Americans being seen at the emergency department as a reason to pass the law“Our health care system has forced too many uninsured Americans to depend on the emergency room for the care they need,” she said in a July 2009 statement. “We cannot wait for reform that gives all Americans the high-quality, affordable care they need and helps prevent illnesses from turning into emergencies.”

That's a no brainer, doctors don't accept Medicaid as it is because it doesn't pay squat. I've already said in this regional medical Mecca there is only one doctor that will see my daughter for her rectal cancer. So people think they'll get a doctor and don't so they flood the ERs.

Is it because they are too lazy to set up an appt. or because they don't have a family physician because they can't find one that will accept them as a patient? And some specialists won't accept a patient without a referral (over and above whether or not the insurer requires a referral) and every specialist I have had to contact in my region is already booked up for at least two months and it has been that way for several years. The only reason the rest of us (with standard insurance) don't go to the ER is because our insurer will punish us. Are serious conditions being found as a result of those ER visits or follow up to those ER visits? Call your Dr's office now (or some other time when the office is closed) and the recording will most likely tell you to call 911 or got to the ER. Or call your Dr. tomorrow during business hours and they will probably tell you the same thing.

I failed to say my wife works for a billing company also, no one wants to accept Medicaid because it doesn't pay squat. It's largely an issue of limited providers who will accept it. You have to get served in the ER. My daughter has a primary care physician through district clinic but beyond her regular appointments she can only get in as a walk in on Monday and Friday, the only other option is the ER. Been living that nightmare with her for the last 3 weeks, now she's in the hospital.

Fyi, this should put to rest the "progressive narrative" that Republican Governors are a$$holes for not expanding Medicaid, but I know facts are irrelevant to progressives including the fact that expanding the program does nothing to improve health outcomes.

who's health outcomes? Got to improve someones. it is the cost he complains of

yes it was one of the biggest fictions of the progressive narrative that expanding coverage would reduce costs.

nothing the medical profession ever does reduces costs and the insurers are happy to accomodate them, they can increase premiums

one thing I'm looking for the GOP to do is pass 'The No Bailout for Insurance Companies Act of 2014' (repealing sec 1341 and 1342 of the ACA....part of the bill that had to be passed 1st before we found out what is in it ) .
will they do it ? probably not. That kicks in if there is a so called 'adverse selection' ie. the invincibles don't sign up ;but as is occurring ,a higher percentage of Medicaid eligible people sign up.40% of the new enrollees had to be young and healthy for the Obamcare math to add up.
This wasn't going to be a problem because of all the mandates that are now being eliminated piecemeal by the emperor. So sec 1341 and 1342 insured the insurance companies with a 'reinsurance fund ,and "risk corridor" provision that mandates a major taxpayer payout covering up to 80% of insurance-company losses.

We are closer to the death spiral now than anyone likes to admit . Massive increases in premiums to cover for the imbalance will force even more healthy people to opt out . That's when the bailouts come into play.
The insurance companies are willing accomplices in the Obamacare scheme and should not be spared the consequences. Let the insurance companies bail out . Then Obamcare collapses . Can't wait to see the Dems vote against a bill that ends a bail out for another fat cat industry .

ah the joys of legislature

Landmark study shatters liberal health care claims | Mobile Washington Examiner (http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/landmark-study-shatters-liberal-health-care-claims/article/2528671)

Specifically, researchers found that those who received Medicaid increased their annual health care spending by $1,172, or 35 percent more than those who did not receive Medicaid. Those with Medicaid were more likely to be screened for diabetes and use diabetes medication and to make use of other preventive care measures. The study also examined health metrics including blood pressure and cholesterol.

Ultimately, the authors concluded that, “This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured health outcomes in the first two years, but it did increase use of health services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain.”

So, the study suggests that expanding Medicaid is one way of reducing financial pressure on low-income groups, but it's costly and does not improve their health.

Getting diabetes and blood pressure detected and under control and managed is not a good health outcome?

Hello again,

Bummer. I was WRONG. Obamacare is WORKING. It's the LAW, and it's DOING what it's supposed to do. In 5 years, MOST of the nation will be freed from the fear of dying on the street, or going bankrupt if you get sick.

Of course, we'll be hearing about it from the right wing, EVEN as they enjoy their new benefits too.

Yaaaaaaawn.

excon

You should get out more, ex. People who thought they had insurance are getting turned away, or told they'll have to pay the full cost of treatment which is likely anyway since their deductible is 5 grand, on top of their new monthly premium. The wailing and gnashing of teeth is just beginning.

'They had no idea if my insurance was active or not!': At Virginia hospitals, Obamacare confusion reigns as frustrated patients walk out | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2532869/They-no-idea-insurance-active-not-At-Virginia-hospitals-Obamacare-confusion-reigns-frustrated-patients-walk-out.html)

They'll figure it out, they aren't stupid.

Hello again, Steve:

I didn't say it wasn't without glitches, and isn't in need of tweaking.. I said it was WORKING. I said it's the LAW of the land, NEVER to be repealed. I said it's DOING what it's supposed to do, and it IS.

It's the BIGGEST piece of progressive legislation in a GENERATION, and Obama will go down in history as the one who made it happen. THAT'S why you hate it, and that's why you'll ALWAYS hate it.

But, it's OVER. You LOST.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

I didn't say it wasn't without glitches, and isn't in need of tweaking.. I said it was WORKING. I said it's the LAW of the land, NEVER to be repealed. I said it's DOING what it's supposed to do, and it IS.

It's the BIGGEST piece of progressive legislation in a GENERATION, and Obama will go down in history as the one who made it happen. THAT'S why you hate it, and that's why you'll ALWAYS hate it.

But, it's OVER. You LOST.

excon

Don't tell me why I do why I do. I hate it because I hate big government. I hate it because I LOVE freedom. I hate it because government SUCKS at most everything, and if you can't see that now you're just plain stupid. I hate it because it's making me POORER instead of SAVING me money as promised. If you think this is GOOD, you really need to look again, because THIS is a freakin' JOKE.

Yeah it's probably here to stay .Ted Cruz warned us that Jan 2014 was a hard deadline and he was right . We are consigned to fix the damage as best we can . As I stated already today . The best strategery is to repeal immediately the insurance company bailout provisions of the law that Marco Rubio warned us about a couple of months ago . Then the law will wither on the vine when no insurance providers ,and no health care providers are willing to play in the charade anymore .

I said it's the LAW of the land,

flashback 1933 "prohibition is the law of the land and it's here to stay"

Hello again, tom:

Flashforward to Romney. "Once you give 'em stuff, you'll NEVER get it away from them".

excon

yeah freebees

yeah freebeesHello again, tom:

I could have said the SAME thing another way. However, I'm NOT sure you'll so readily agree.

Once people secure their RIGHTS, you'll NEVER take them away...

excon

Tom Toles: Political Cartoons from Tom Toles - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/toles/)


Just a cartoon (I hope).

The right to free birth control. I somehow doubt the framers could find that in the constitution.

Once people secure their RIGHTS, you'll NEVER take them away...

excon

You have case law that says you have a right to blood pressure meds? Or cholesterol drugs? Or Chemotherapy?

it's a right until the government decides to take it away . The government decided to starve Terri Schiavo to death.

Hello again, right wing friends:

Last year, the right wing fought against IMPLEMENTING Obamacare. You LOST. In the short run, it's NOT going to be repealed. In the LONG run, it's only going to be repealed IF the Republicans control all three branches of government. That doesn't look especially promising, in my view.

Therefore, short of WAITING until and/or IF you EVER get that majority, what would you suggest to FIX Obamacare?

I think you got NOTHING.. You were ALL IN, and you LOST. Tort reform and buying insurance across state lines is TOAST!!!! It AIN'T gonna happen. I KNOW you want to get back in the game, but waiting for something that may NEVER happen is NOT the way to govern. I know you THINK it is, but you're WRONG.

Over to you, wingers.

excon

Hello again, C:
You have case law that says you have a right to blood pressure meds? Or cholesterol drugs? Or Chemotherapy?Better than that, I have the 9th Amendment to the Constitution.

excon

Hello again, right wing friends:

Last year, the right wing fought against IMPLEMENTING Obamacare. You LOST. In the short run, it's NOT going to be repealed. In the LONG run, it's only going to be repealed IF the Republicans control all three branches of government. That doesn't look especially promising, in my view.

Therefore, short of WAITING until and/or IF you EVER get that majority, what would you suggest to FIX Obamacare?

I think you got NOTHING.. You were ALL IN, and you LOST. Tort reform and buying insurance across state lines is TOAST!!!! It AIN'T gonna happen. I KNOW you want to get back in the game, but waiting for something that may NEVER happen is NOT the way to govern. I know you THINK it is, but you're WRONG.

Over to you, wingers.

excon

Still cheerleading for this 'Heritage Foundation' authored plan largely lifted from Romneycare ? .....this sell out to insurance companies ? Yeah this unfolding catastrophe the progressives foisted on the nation will require fixing .
Your solution is single payer top down gvt. run health care industry . Mine is free market.

The free market is the entire delivery system. What you want Tom, is an unfettered free market that lets the private insurance industry kick people off and can cap benefits, and tell doctors and hospitals what the patient can, and can't have. The risk corridor clause isn't a bailout, it's a transitional adjustment period that can go either way between win and lose profit for insurance OR the government defined in a 3 year window.

It's a price control mechanism that PROTECTS both consumer, and private business interests equally. They make profits we get benefits. They make too much prices go down, too little prices go up. But of course a supply side capitalist such as yourself ONLY believes in unfettered, unregulated, private markets and the hell with the DEMAND side of the economic equation.

'unfettered' is a progressive dog whistle . Free market would reduce the influence of the insurance companies which only gained their place in our system because of government mandates in the 1st place.

Hello again, C:Better than that, I have the 9th Amendment to the Constitution.

excon

The thing is that when the founders authored the 9th amendment ,they did not consider any of the so called positive rights . They were concerned with the things that government was restricted from doing . The founders would've thought it inconcievable that a right would be based on plundering the wealth of someone else in the country . That's what monarchies were good at doing ...not a nation of free people . The only way to create positive rights was by personal consent, usually contract ;or if involuntary on one parties part ,by coercion

The premise that the people/citizens of America have less rights to define policy and principle, and their own rights is absurd, no matter what the founders were thinking. The 9th amendment is NOT the exclusive domain of corporations or business people, even if corporation are people too.

Are you really saying that RIGHTS are applied to some, and not others? Show me that in the constitution. If we can hove a musket up a KINGS arse, we can damn sure shove one up a capitalists corporatist congress's arse too!!!

have no idea what you are talking about .If there is a thing as a positive right ,it is secured by the people through law ;within the confines of the enumerated powers . What is absurd is that the "people" have a "right " to blood pressure meds,cholesterol drugs, chemotherapy . That right is only secured under the assumption that someone has to willingly or unwillingly provide that service.

The ACA is the law, and rules of how the rights of consumers and business are applied. That why the private insurance companies are revving up a multi-million dollar ad campaign for enrolling millions of people. Government/private venture for health care.

You have failed to stop the program, and still refuse to get with the program, until the benefits you conservatives get roll your way. And they have.

yawn... you keep repeating that ..my coverage is exactly the same as last year except it costs more. Waiting for the real hammer to come when the employer mandate is enacted .

How so?

Tom, you can't have a organized society without a social contract. A social contract necessitates both positive and negative rights. Obviously, your Bill of Rights outlines the things a government can't do. For example, a government cannot stop freedom of speech.

However, this necessitates a problem because within a organized society absolute freedom of speech is impossible. So on occasions, when warranted, a government can infringe on that right. It has do so in the past and will probably do so in the future.This is still within the keeping of the Constitution as a whole. Just ask SCOTUS

well as you know ,I don't consider SCOTUS the final arbiter. I don't disagree with you that the social contract is the source of the so called 'positive rights'. I still contend that they are not applicable in the content of the 9th amendment . There has not been a single program passed by Congress that can't be reversed or modified by congressional act .They do it all the time. I also contend that it takes a whole lot of pretzel twisting of the language of the enumerated powers to create them in the 1st place.
If medical care is a "right" ,then how is it that the government got to decide that Terri Schiavo could be denied medical treatment ?

Tom we all know that governments do what they do until they are challenged. There is no implicit requirement that they act constitutionally. They enact legislation and then if that legislation contravenes constitutional rights it is challenged. until it is, it is law. Your constitution does not stop this from happening, it just provides a balance against excess. Your constitution should have contained an amendment that no law can be enacted that contravenes or seeks to alter the provisions of the constitution, without the constitution itsself being first amended, AH tortology is great isn't it.

I think you might consider starting the process from scratch and developing a new constitution, you could get rid of all the problems and make many things clear

SCOTUS is the final arbiter, beliefs don't count. Like it or NOT. That doesn't mean congress cannot act, or the laws cannot be challenged. As we see with abortions, or voting rights, or even religious rights, settled cases, yet states are coming up with all kinds of ways to slow, lock, or change the intent of the law.

Hollering foul or not having the votes to make changes you want is no reason to throw out the constitution. Its always going to be defined, interpreted, and challenged. You kind of have you facts mixed up in the Shiavo case, the husband pulled the plug, not congress after she was deemed brain dead. He had the final say over the family.

The people are the ones who are making health care a right. They have that right.

I think you might consider starting the process from scratch and developing a new constitution, you could get rid of all the problems and make many things clear
I have argued here for a new constitutional convention before( Article 5on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states).

How so?
Because employers are going to have to make the choice of providing the more expensive benefits or dumping their employees in the exchanges .The insurance companies have to set their premium prices by mid-summer and that will be an indicator of which way employers will go.

settled cases
The left loves using that term when they don't want the law changed . Yet they have no problem challenging 'settled cases ' in court ,by legislation ,executive fiat ,or bureaucratic action/inaction when it suits their agenda .

so the house of cards will come tumbling down, and inevietably it will be replaced by what, people being responsible for their own health insurance, truely portable health insurance, and it took a two thosand page bill and years of debate to achieve this? remarkable system this democracy. Oh I forgot; it isn't a democracy, it is a constitutional monarchy, opps, that is the other fellows, a constitutional republic, pardon my confusion I have a headache.

pardon my confusion I have a headache. yeah a progressive agenda will do that to you

and yet we achieved it with a progressive agenda and none of the angst, well a little angst, but that was because it was poorly explained, some still see using the public system as a death sentence, but that is only for elective surgery

I feel sorry for you, it is bad when you have uncertainty about essential services

Obamacare was designed to fail .Every lib admits it in moments of candor .

Hello again:
Obamacare was designed to fail .Every lib admits it in moments of candor .
I have argued here for a new constitutional convention beforeI dunno.. I LOVE it here. I LOVE my country. I LOVE our Constitution.. I'd fear for my country if YOUR side got to write a new one... There's something you guys have AGAINST freedom. Oh, you believe in freedom for THEE, but not for ME..

You made a good start too. The Patriot Act was designed by fascists to DESTROY the Constitution. Even right wingers admit it in moments of candor.

excon

a convention to amend the constitution is part of the constitution (Article 5) . Your side would be part of the conversation too. If you think the people want all these progressive inspired 'positive rights ' aka freebees then you could stamp their permanence in the constitution . Your side says it loves the constitution and then say it's a 'living 'document that can be molded like silly putty to make it look any way you want it to.

The Patriot Act was designed by fascists to DESTROY the Constitution.
How many times has it been re-authorized by Congress and the President since 2006 (when the Dems had full majority in both Houses ,and after 2008-10 when the Dems controlled both Congress and the Presidency ?
On May 26, 2011, President Barack Obama used an Autopen to sign the PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011 which included ,roving wiretaps, searches of business records (the "library records provision"), and conducting surveillance of "lone wolves". Where was all that mock outrage the Dems demonstrated during the Bush years ?

Hello again, tom:

Our founders KNEW about people like you. They KNEW that if given the choice, the MAJORITY would sh!t on the minority. And, that's EXACTLY what you'd do. Nahhh... I wouldn't want to live here IF you could have your way with us..

excon

Hello again, tom:

Our founders KNEW about people like you. They KNEW that if given the choice, the MAJORITY would sh!t on the minority. And, that's EXACTLY what you'd do. Nahhh... I wouldn't want to live here IF you could have your way with us..

excon

Yet that's exactly what Democrats do every day.

Hello again, Steve:

Yet that's exactly what Democrats do every day.Still, the libs aren't calling for a change in the rules. YOU are.

Lemme ask you this. You too, tom, since you brought it up. Of the 10 Bills of Rights that we HAVE, how many will survive your Constitutional convention? Seriously. There's only 10. Why don't you show us YOURS. I'll START.

In my view, THIS would be your First Amendment: The United States being a Christian nation, congress shall make NO law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

I think you'd leave OFF our freedom of speech, a free press and the right of the people to assemble and petition their government... What???? Those are freedoms you'd give the people????? Who're you trying to kid????

Over to you wingers??? What??? You wanna REWRITE it, but you DON'T know what you wanna say????? Come on. You can tell us how FREE your nation will be. I wanna know..

excon

We may have to wait for that constitutional convention Tom until the votes are there and they aren't now for sure. Not for any single issue or policy. There are to many other options to get changes people want within the frame work of the constitution as is, and always has been. The battles now are about how we interpret, and define, and implement, and apply the laws we make and that's rapidly changing because we are changing, and not just in technology and national interests but in size and make up.

Big changes in many areas and of course some don't like the speed or scope of those changes and even more don't like the slow pace of change. Or the unequal application of the law or the money. That's what brings about a change, when the many are not happy with the policy of the few. Been that way through out history.

Even the NSA will go through changes but it ain't going nowhere soon, but people will be a lot more aware of their privacy when they deal in this rapidly expanding electronic age. The constitution provides for government intrusions by requiring a warrant, but law enforcement has had ways around that for as long as they have had that rule, and not just the feds, but locals as well.

So good luck with that convention idea, and worrying about the feds being as savvy with your info as Facebook, or Bank of America. If things are moving too fast for ya, Tom, fasten your seat belts.

Hello again, Steve:
Still, the libs aren't calling for a change in the rules. YOU are.

Lemme ask you this. You too, tom, since you brought it up. Of the 10 Bills of Rights that we HAVE, how many will survive your Constitutional convention? Seriously. There's only 10. Why don't you show us YOURS. I'll START.

In my view, THIS would be your First Amendment: The United States being a Christian nation, congress shall make NO law prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

I think you'd leave OFF our freedom of speech, a free press and the right of the people to assemble and petition their government... What???? Those are freedoms you'd give the people????? Who're you trying to kid????

Over to you wingers??? What??? You wanna REWRITE it, but you DON'T know what you wanna say????? Come on. You can tell us how FREE your nation will be. I wanna know..

excon

That is so devoid of reality there's nothing really to say. It certainly isn't your side defending those rights, this regime thinks religious freedom is only what they say it is and speech codes are certainly not a product of the right. Who are you trying to kid?

The ACA needs to fail and fail fast (as designed) while Obama is still in office to complete the resultant push for single payer.
It will be tough to pull off even then but millions of Americans screaming to congress about their screwed-up healthcare may be the main impetus.
And hopefully before the insurance bailout starts (or maybe insurance co. bailout will be the immediate cause that brings about single payer).
It will be fine with me, deficit schmeficit. A trillion more or less didn't matter and 5,000 young lives lost in Iraq and already Fallujah is in the hands of al-Qaeda.
Cheney said deficits don't matter 12 or so years ago- maybe he was right.

Krauthammer says the bailout was all provided for in the ACA (did he misinterpret the law?):
Charles Krauthammer: Stop the bailout, now - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-stop-the-bailout-now/2014/01/02/6b3087a2-73d7-11e3-8def-a33011492df2_story.html)

"First, Section 1341, the “reinsurance” fund collected from insurers and self-insuring employers at a nifty $63 a head. (Who do you think the cost is passed on to?) This yields about $20 billion over three years to cover losses.

Then there is Section 1342, the “risk corridor” provision that mandates a major taxpayer payout covering up to 80 percent of insurance-company losses."

That is so devoid of reality there's nothing really to say.Hello again, Steve:

Oh, I didn't think we'd agree. But, I was HOPING that instead of flapping your gums, you'd actually WRITE what you propose to DO. Certainly, you'd CHANGE something. . What would that be??? Are you afraid to actually say it, because you KNOW you'll be torn to shreds if you do???? I think that's what it is.

Over to you.

excon

You can't dismiss the question by blaming the regime. A majority of Americans voted for this regime TWICE!

Hello again, Steve:

Oh, I didn't think we'd agree. But, I was HOPING that instead of flapping your gums, you'd actually WRITE what you propose to DO. Certainly, you'd CHANGE something. . What would that be??? Are you afraid to actually say it, because you KNOW you'll be torn to shreds if you do???? I think that's what it is.

Over to you.

excon

You'd have to ask Tom since it was he that proposed it, I was merely calling you on your BS. Only one side is actively trying to curb religious freedom. Only one side is actively trying to curb freedom of speech. Only one side is actively trying to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, and it isn't us on any count.

 You can't dismiss the question by blaming the regime. A majority of Americans voted for this regime TWICE!

First, the people did not vote their rights away. The president swore to protect and defend the Constitution, not undermine it. Second, I am under no obligation to explain positions I don't hold.

the real problem is that your side wants programs that are extra-constitutional (and don't give me the bs that SCOTUS ,twisting the words of constitution, has put their permanent stamp of approval on them).
My amendments would have little to do with specific laws and would only repeal one or 2 amendments ( and you can rest assured the Bill of Rights would be safe ) .

Mine would establish term limits for the rest of the national government . I'd repeal the 17th amendment and restore the Senate to what the founders intended . I'd propose a balance budget amendment like most of the states already have. I'd make an amendment to restore the balance of power in government ;specifically a provision to repeal a SCOTUS decision.
As for your nonsense about our side altering the 1st Amendment ;I'll remind you that it's our side that has been defending the 1st against your intolerance.

the real problem is that your side wants programs that are extra-constitutionalHello again, tom:

The real problem is your side doesn't believe in protecting an INDIVIDUALS civil rights. Stop and Frisk is the most recent example.

excon

You cannot ignore the moderate and left wing minority coalitions, that are people of color, woman, old and poor, that have aligned nationally against the right wing views, policy and laws that they hate can you?

So say it like it is, you no longer enjoy the same power and influence of abject domination you once did. The interest of the many have changed the electorate, and you guys for all the gloom and doom, and victim talk, and shenanigans have failed to win the hearts, and minds of a growing populace. The notion you can force YOUR rights on others is being rejected.

Practice whatever you want in YOUR yard, but stay out of mine. Get use to the idea of being told NO, Thanks!! Good Luck in the next election! You will need it.

Hello again, tom:

The real problem is your side doesn't believe in protecting an INDIVIDUALS civil rights. Stop and Frisk is the most recent example.

excon

lol your side talks a good game ,but when the rubber hits the road ;even commie Bill de Blasio hired William Bratton ,the architect of Stop and Frisk as NYPD Commish .

Hello again, tom:

;even commie Bill de Blasio hired William Bratton ,the architect of Stop and Frisk as NYPD Commish .Big sodas'll be making a return too, huh? Betcha Bratton ENDS stop and frisk.

excon

Mine would establish term limits for the rest of the national government . I'd repeal the 17th amendment and restore the Senate to what the founders intended . I'd propose a balance budget amendment like most of the states already have.

Let me get this straight, you think that appointing senators improves democracy, you also think removing the ability of a government to borrow to fulfill its programs improves democracy. I expect these ideas were ok back in the days when the government consisted of the privileged and there wasn't a standing army or paved roads and no one had any idea of what population pressures might bring. I seem to remember that following such ideas got you invaded and Washington burned. What a pity you didn't take the hint and not rebuild it

Let me get this straight, you think that appointing senators improves democracy
it furthers the cause of federalism . You can keep your ideas of democracy. We are a federal republic
Besides ,there is nothing that mandates that Senators are appointed .States can decide how they select Senators .

You can keep your ideas of democracy.


at least I have an idea what democracy might emcompass, you are obviously clueless

the founders understood that democracy is a prescription for failure . Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution even contains the word democracy.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. (Franklin)

Democracy is a disaster for the elites and privileged maybe but democracy works for the common man and that's how we will run this republic. The founders are long gone, and no longer rule, or set policy... but thanks old dudes, for the framework and foundation for building a more perfect union where all men are created equal, and women too!!

the founders understood that democracy is a prescription for failure . Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution even contains the word democracy.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. (Franklin)

If this is an opinion held in your nation why would you be attepting to spread your ideas of democracy to the world. Have you ever considered that your nation is one of the wolves. I know democracy didn't exist anywhere at the time of your revolution, but it has been convenient for you to be considered a leading democracy and to promote a democratic form of government. Recent events would suggest your implementation lacks democracy

"...the Founders understood that democracy is a prescription for failure. Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution even contain the word democracy".

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting what to have for lunch. (Franklin)

I thought Plato said it first in,"The Republic". Which reminds me that one can just as easily demonstrate similar failures that were caused by Republican virtue. You know, the elites getting to decide what everyone else has for lunch.


P.S. Just in case there is any confusion. By "Republican Virtue" I don't mean a political party. Another way of saying this would be Republic virtue, or perhaps, civic virtue

I don't think Tom realises that republicanism leads to imperialism. Inevietably power becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer elites. In Rome they were called senators and yet your founders duplicated this corrupt system and called it virtuous and even adopted roman architectural forms. Democracy can be prone to this also as the most prominient citizens are elected to govern

hence the need to decentralize power and to have a constitutional government subject to amending . All that was considered at the founding .

What the left is very good at is accusing others for doing exactly what they are doing . I submit that it is the party that claims they are for the little people that demonstrate the elitism that you say I champion.

As an example ,Obamacare will be the largest entitlement program in history and it rewarded the AMA along with big insurance and big pharma for their political support. They gave about 2- 3 times more support to the emperor than to McCain in 2008 and have been richly rewarded for their support. . Jeffrey Immelt of GE was one of the biggest supporters of the emperor . Not surprisingly GE is one of the largest benefactor of the law. Obamacare eliminates all of GE's competition in medical imaging.

As I pointed out earlier ,the Dems play a good rhetorical game and don't follow through. It's easy for the wealthy libs to support the Dems because they never really have to live with the consequences of the lib policies . Quite the opposite ...it entrenches them and eliminates any upstart challengers to their positions . The rich figured out long ago that the Democrats would regulate the small businessman out of business.

Americans aren't stupid Tom, your weak central government idea is but a cover for rich guy control. They already robbed us blind with this cheap labor BS, and took their tax breaks oversea to exploit other cultures, but we are on to you and the would be oligarchs.

All you guys had to do was trickle down enough to keep the masses satisfied but NOOOOOOOOOOOO, you just had to keep it all, and call us dumb, and lazy. You'll see how well that works for ya!!

Tom, all you are doing is proving the point, which has little to do with party politics and a great deal to do with the failure of your constitution to live up to the promise of protecting the people. What it actually does is protect entrenched power.
You say Obama has usurped power and implemented something which advantages only the insurance companies. In reality the insurance companies have taken the opportunity to gouge the population because the constitution was never intended to protect against misuse of market power. Such a thing wasn't even contemplated in the eighteenth century and this tells us that eighteenth century thinking is not going to get the job done.
Tal you surely don't think the masses are satisfied, given the number of people who live on welfare

The constitution gives the congress the power to regulate trade and commerce. Now whether the congress acts and how is an entirely different issue. And no Clete, the masses are not satisfied at all.

and yet SCOTUS rejected the emperor's defense of Obamacare under the commerce clause of the constitution. Roberts twisted the pretzel to justify it under the taxing authority .
Here is Roberts opinion re: the commerce clause ....

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”

" What the left is very good at doing is accusing others for doing what they are doing. I submit that it is the party that claims they are for the little people that demonstrate the elitism that you say I champion".

In exactly the same way you could submit that big business pretends to promote a conservative agenda. Is this what you mean Tom?

The commerce clause could be used to regulate pricing and access to the market but not mandate participation. Certainly a correct decision which will no doubt be used as precident in the future. Why mandatory participation was not struck down isn't clear, however the penalties are a form of taxation, fines are used to mandate compliance in many instances.

Tom unfortunately holds the view that the market provides the perfect vehicle to regulate human behaviour, but we know the market is manipulated and human behaviour will always gravitate towards the least cost option. What has been done here is to limit the options and that is a valid government action, even if it has been imperfectly implemented

Yes, and consumers gravitate to the lowest prices. A large chain store opened up in out own a year or so ago, in the middle of the main street It sold a large variety of goods. Many of the goods sold were the same as those sold by small business close by.

Electrical appliances were sold at reduced price, as was over the counter pharmacy products. Some small business (at least three) went out of business. Others are still struggling to stay afloat.

It becomes increasingly interesting to watch what happens when big business comes to town. A few years ago we had one hardware chain then another built out of town in a new development, this was followed by redevelopment of a franchise store closer to town and now another large chain is developing even further out of town whilst a small local store still thrives. We had one electrical appliance store, now we have three. What has disappeared is a large department store. I have observed that small speciality stores are disappearing, but these arn't selling the same products.

We pay much less for products today the result of the development of China but the price of services increases, all of this indicates that the market operates well when there is plenty of competition but this doesn't necessarily mean growth in local employment. Getting back to the subject, the ACA would have been better implemented by fully opening the market and giving incentives for participation, not penalties.

That's what the tax subsidies are.

yes the government givith and the government taketh away, I understood there are certain incentives for lower income

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41137.pdf

As you see a family of 4 can make $92,400 and be eligible for a tax credit subsidy that's applied immediately to your first premium payment.

Ok so there is a threshold and the level is higher than poverty level, So the question is, who gets the advantage; the families or the insurers? You see Tal I didn't think the problem is for the middle class but for low income people

Only in states that have chosen not to expand the Medicaid coverage Clete, do we find a lot of scrambling around to cover lower and no income people. Exclusively it seems in republican controlled states. There are 25 of them, including the one I am in. They will be on board eventually once they look at the drains on their local and state budgets and the hospitals scream foul for absorbing the costs of uninsured people.


Medicaid

Although Medicaid is generally beyond the scope of this report, ACA's Medicaid expansion
provisions have the potential for affecting eligibility for premium credits if certain low to middle
income individuals and families seek health insurance through the exchanges. Under ACA, states
have the option to expand Medicaid eligibility to include all non-elderly, non-pregnant
individuals (i.e., childless adults and certain parents, except for those ineligible based on certain
noncitizenship status) with income up to 133% FPL.27 (ACA does not change noncitizens'
eligibility for Medicaid.28) States that choose to implement the ACA Medicaid expansion will
receive substantial federal subsidies. If a person who applied for premium credits in an exchange
is determined to be eligible for Medicaid, the exchange must have them enrolled in Medicaid.29
Therefore, any state that expands Medicaid eligibility to include persons with income at or above
100% FPL (or any state that currently includes such individuals) would make such individuals
ineligible for premium credits.24

Really poor people would pay nothing. Neither would the state. It should be noted that states that refuse to expand have their Federal funding frozen at 2009 levels, leaving many poor and lower income people uninsured.

those will be the states the lefties call on to bail out the other states when the Feds cut the funding they provide to the states ,and the states find out they are left with another Federal budget buster to finance on their own.

What's the other budget buster the states have to finance on their own?

There's plenty although Medicaid has always been the big fish. Many of them are unfunded mandates .
The EPA has plenty of them . Municipalities get rocked by them all the time . NCLB has them also. )see 'School District of Pontiac, Michigan v. Duncan' where SCOTUS decided insufficient federal funds were not a valid reason to not comply with a federal mandate.

How about links instead of broad vague inaccurate assertions?

It's ok Tal we too understand the concept of unfunded community service obligations

I'll give you an easy one. REAL ID is a mandate to standardize licenses that the Fed Gvt forced on the states that the states have to pick up the tab on. There are so many of them and Medicaid is the mother of them all . That's why SCOTUS decided that mandatory participation was unconstitutional .Medicaid spending doubled over the last decade before the Obamacare expansion , and for many states it consumes the first or second biggest share of state expenditures, threatening education, public safety, and transportation programs.

Tom Medicaid isn't unfunded. You are assuming the federal government will change the funding arrangements and leave the states with the bill. It is much easier if these programs are centralised in funding and rollout, just as it is much easier to have a single payer solution and a uniform set of entitlement rules.

Your structures add extra complexity and extra cost in just about everything. Bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. Having the states involved doesn't make it more efficient or from recent event more effective

You are assuming the federal government will change the funding arrangements and leave the states with the bill.
I'll guarantee it .

You can't guarantee anything, you have an opinion, is all

It's a fact that the 100% federal match will drop in 3 years to 90% while the states are required to pick up all the administrative costs, as well as its higher share of coverage for citizens who are not now enrolled but who will likely do so. As it is ,most of the enrollees in the exchanges are the ones applying for Medicaid coverage.
Medicaid spending was already increasing before Obamacare .... an increase of 250% since 1990 adjusted for inflation.


While Medicaid spending accounts for
nearly one-quarter of most state budgets, in my home state of Pennsylvania, it is approximately one-third
of the entire state budget.
Should Pennsylvania choose to expand the program under the Affordable Care Act, over 60 percent of
the commonwealth’s budget will go to Medicaid, unfairly crowding out funding for roads, schools, and
public safety.
Medicaid costs to the state are expected to grow by nearly $400 million in the next fiscal year, and these
costs do not include any costs associated with an expansion.
Currently one in six Pennsylvanians receives Medicaid benefits. If the governor chooses to expand
Medicaid in the commonwealth, 1 in 4 Pennsylvanians will be on the Medicaid rolls.
And this is not just a problem for Pennsylvania.
The next ten years of federal Medicaid spending will be twice the amount spent in the last 45 years.
This is completely unsustainable.
Medicaid was designed as a safety net for our nation’s poorest and sickest people. States are already
struggling to serve this core population, and Washington certainly doesn’t have extra money lying around
either. For a system that is already under tremendous strain, how will adding millions of young, ablebodied adults to Medicaid affect our ability to care for our country’s poorest and sickest citizens?

Opening Statement of the Honorable Joe Pitts
Subcommittee on Health
Hearing on “Saving Seniors and Our Most Vulnerable Citizens from an Entitlement
Crisis”
March 18, 2013
http://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/Hearings/Health/20130318/HHRG-113-IF14-MState-P000373-20130318.pdf

Raise taxes, close loopholes, and stop sending jobs overseas. Not increasing revenues to offset the devastating effects of the global economic crisis even on a temporary basis is fiscally unsound and doesn't address the leaving millions of potential workers (and their positive economic activity) out of the economy and dependent for great amounts of time unnecessarily.

The longer we perpetuate the sluggish growth and lack of economic expansion, the higher the cost of the safety net. If private money doesn't invest, then they get taxed. Even beyond that government should have the power to expand and get people off the safety net while the job creators figure out how they want to trickle their profits and fortunes down to the rest of the economy.

Lets repeat the positive outcomes of the Clinton example. Where we raised taxes and cut spending, yes military spending too, and balanced the budget. The right wing notion of cutting government and taxes is the revenue problem that has allowed for corporate expansion and cheap labor, to throw the balance way out of whack, and government's ability to serve it's own citizens both on the federal and local levels. I mean didn't we learn from the last shutdown that taking 25 billion out of the American pie ain't the thing to do?

Of course rational people did. Grow the pie, more will eat from it.

aspirational Tal but in order to grow the pie you need to change your attitude to international trade, making it worthwhile for manufacturing to return. the fact is , you are lieke the rest of us, you got nothing, your companies earn profits from manufacturing offshore and gouging the locals, and those profits don't trickle down to anyone

I guess some are not helping grow the pie, because the are too intent on hoarding more of it for themselves. That by definition is greed. A very human affliction. They are out of control and actions to protect citizens from such action need to be taken, NOT more enabling. Tax negative behavior, and reward positive.

Who is to determine this "negative behavior" you speak of?

great question dad, we know it exists because investment isn't happening dispite the flood of money, what is happening is investment is taking place in stocks and speculation, not in new assets. the QE needs to be stopped immediately, it is preventing investment. Why take risks when your capital is growing just by buying stocks. this bubble will burst and it will be worse than the GFC and you can thank the rediculous policies of Benanke

or the Chinese real estate bubble will burst big time ,and Chinese money will look for a place to invest ,and will find a willing market in the USA .

No the Chinese have plenty to invest in closer to home and the ability to control where their money goes, Your market offers too much risk. Chinese money has been finding it's way south, where economies are more stable and attitudes more ameniable. you can't have it both ways Tom, you bleated about the chinese holding your bonds and now you expect them to invest there in your crumbling economy

The American economy is far from crumbling, and the Chinese have and will continue to invest in it, so will the rest of the world (Australia too!).Even if they invest in other countries. Those are facts, no need for rhetoric or speculation, or LOL, wishful thinking.

I assure you it's already happening
Chinese Investment in U.S. Doubles to $14 Billion in 2013 - Businessweek (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-08/chinese-investment-into-u-dot-s-dot-doubles-to-14-billion-in-2013)

yes it is happening here too, which speaks more about the Chinese economy than it does about ours or yours.

yeah theirs sucks and is going to be a disaster in the near future

all economies are subject to cyclical boom and bust and particularly where there is expotential growth.

Obama finally got budget conscious, because well, that would require a little of his famous transparency on Obamacare performance and of all things, telling Americans of security breaches that could compromise their existence. I mean hey, why should we know if our identity may have been stolen?


White House stops short of veto threats on House healthcare bills | TheHill (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/healthcare/195008-obama-opposes-weekly-reports-on-obamacare)

Barack Obama discovers a leak under his sink, so he calls Joe the Plumber to come and fix it.

Joe drives to Obama's house, which is located in a very nice neighborhood and where it's clear that all the residents make more than $250,000 per year.

Joe arrives and takes his tools into the house. Joe is led to the room that contains the leaky pipe under a sink. Joe assesses the problem and tells Obama, who is standing near the door, that it's an easy repair that will take less than 10 minutes.

Obama asks Joe how much it will cost. Joe immediately says, "$9,500."

"$9,500?" Obama asks, stunned, "But you said it's an easy repair!"

"Yes, but what I do is charge a lot more to my clients who make more than $250,000 per year so I can fix the plumbing of everybody who makes less than that for free," explains Joe. "It's always been my philosophy. As a matter of fact, I lobbied government to pass this philosophy as law, and it did pass earlier this year, so now all plumbers have to do business this way. It's known as 'Joe's Affordable Plumbing Act of 2013.' Surprised you haven't heard of it."

In spite of that, Obama tells Joe there's no way he's paying that much for a small plumbing repair, so Joe leaves. Obama spends the next hour flipping through the phone book looking for another plumber, but he finds that all other plumbing businesses listed have gone out of business. Not wanting to pay Joe's price, Obama does nothing. The leak under Obama's sink goes unrepaired for the next several days.

A week later the leak is so bad that Obama has had to put a bucket under the sink. The bucket fills up quickly and has to be emptied every hour, and there's a risk that the room will flood, so Obama calls Joe and pleads with him to return. Joe goes back to Obama's house, looks at the leaky pipe, and says, "Let's see - this will cost you about $21,000."

"A few days ago you told me it would cost $9,500!" Obama quickly fires back.

Joe explains the reason for the dramatic increase. "Well, because of the 'Joe's Affordable Plumbing Act,' a lot of rich people are learning how to fix their own plumbing, so there are fewer of you paying for all the free plumbing I'm doing for the people who make less than $250,000. As a result, the rate I have to charge my wealthy paying customers rises every day.

"Not only that, but for some reason the demand for plumbing work from the group of people who get it for free has skyrocketed, and there's a long waiting list of those who need repairs. This has put a lot of my fellow plumbers out of business, and they're not being replaced - nobody is going into the plumbing business because they know they won't make any money. I'm hurting now too - all thanks to greedy rich people like you who won't pay their fair share."

Obama tries to straighten out the plumber: "Of course you're hurting, Joe! Don't you get it? If all the rich people learn how to fix their own plumbing and you refuse to charge the poorer people for your services, you'll be broke, and then what will you do?"

Joe immediately replies, "Run for president, apparently."

Not bad Smoothy, not bad.

It was the perfect analogy... and pretty darn funny too. Had to share it.

yes smoothy I think your analogy fits medicine perfectly. while it might be a reflection of the ACA, it is being enacted out in medicine today.

It is of course a twist on the tale of the man who charged $10,000 for a simple repair, $5 for the repair and $9,995 for knowing how to do the job.

Actually it describes EXACTLY how the ACA is structured to work. To make sure nobody has coverage better than the people on the bottom of society... unless of course one is part of the political ruling elite... who believe themselves too good to settle for what the unwashed masses are being forced to settle on.

Call me a cynic... but anytime one group tries to force something upon me they proclaim a better and for our own good... and then exempt themselves from it at the same time... makes the average thinking person believe an act of forcible sodomy isn't far ahead.

If its so great...Obama....The House, The Senate, the SCOTUS and all their staffs and families as well as all civil servants should be made to have it and only it equally. If its good enough for us...then its good enough for them too.

can't agree more but what makes you think forced sodomy is in the future, you are ruled by ideas that carry equal weight having been hatched among those on the fringes of society and touted as truth

It's a euphamism... not a literal statement.

Like anything else in life the requires a hard sell. The harder something is pushed on you to buy it... the less you need or want it. And that's universally true no matter what the product or service is.

yes I certainly don't need homsexuality, but back to the point you are being screwed by the gays. I feel sorry for you, your society has embraced homosexuality and allowed it to flourish whilst permitting large scale abortion, eventually you will die out

Hello clete:

your society has embraced homosexuality and allowed it to flourishThe suggestion that homosexuality is a CHOICE, is as wrong as ANY of the pretend science you spew around here. Church is NOT a good place to learn science..

excon

Science is not a good place to learn morals.

Science doesn't deal with morals, just facts. Morals cannot be defined as a truism shared by all, scientific facts can.

Hello again, Steve:

Science is not a good place to learn morals.THAT science teaches morals is something you learned in church, isn't it?

excon

Hello again, Steve:
THAT science teaches morals is something you learned in church, isn't it?

excon

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about. By the way, I've attended church most of life and have never been to a science class at church.

Don't know how church got into this, I was making the point that your society is going to hell in a hand cart, and yes loose morals have more that a little to do with that, but neither church or science is to blame. Ex, for the record life style is a choice, we, none of us, have to engage in heddonistic and immoral behaviour.

Now because I referred to certain group as a chief contributor to moral decline you have come out in a rash and seem to think their life style should be defended. Stop being so prescious

Hello again, clete:

Ex, for the record life style is a choiceFor the record, you did NOT choose your sexual orientation. Church is NOT a good place to learn science.

excon

I think the assumption that all gay people have a gay life style is a bad one. I would bet most are quietly living there lives like anyone else, and there are more straight bar hoppers and hookup seekers than gay ones. So maybe define the "gay" lifestyle that you think I so bad.

I think it's a bogus broad excuse to put people down. So what's this gay lifestyle you abhor so much?

I think the assumption that all gay people have a gay life style is a bad one. I would bet most are quietly living there lives like anyone else, and there are more straight bar hoppers and hookup seekers than gay ones. So maybe define the "gay" lifestyle that you think I so bad.

I think it's a bogus broad excuse to put people down. So what's this gay lifestyle you abhor so much?

NSFW.

Folsom Street Fair, San Francisco, September 30, 2007 Part 1 (http://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/)

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, San Francisco... That's a good place to showcase how gays behave...

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, San Francisco... That's a good place to showcase how gays behave...

Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

He asked, I answered. If you don't find that a little disturbing then you need to rethink things. I'd agree that most gays live quite, peaceable lives but what you see in SF in public there is everywhere, even right here in Amarillo, TX. I realize you think I'm some naive no-nothing but I've seen things that would make you blush.

that would make you blushLike nude beaches in Europe?

Like nude beaches in Europe?

The subject was gay lifestyles.

45498

That was helpful.

You're welcome - follow his advice.

Hello again, Steve:

but what you see in SF in public there is everywhere, even right here in Amarillo, TXI didn't watch the video, because unless people are HURTING each other, I don't CARE. In fact, I'm FINE with people celebrating who they are, even in Amarillo, TX. What do they do there that upsets you, hold hands???

Get a life.

excon

That WAS a gay event, not a lifestyle.

You're welcome - follow his advice.

Ditto. Have you ever disciplined your children?

That WAS a gay event, not a lifestyle.

Get your head out of the sand, Tal.

I don't talk about my children on anonymous discussion boards plus the question is irrelevant and creepy.

The link you provided said it was an event. They don't do that every day, not even in Amarillo, do they? I doubt that every gay person does that every day, even at an event. I am willing to bet, a minority of gay people even turn out for an event such as this. I think a few scares/disgusts you enough to think that's what all gay people do even though you acknowledge that some don't. I say a majority don't not even during a specific event.

I don't talk about my children on anonymous discussion boards plus the question is irrelevant and creepy.

OK, but the point is entirely relevant. I don't have to approve of their lifestyle to love them.

The link you provided said it was an event. They don't do that every day, not even in Amarillo, do they? I doubt that every gay person does that every day, even at an event. I am willing to bet, a minority of gay people even turn out for an event such as this. I think a few scares/disgusts you enough to think that's what all gay people do even though you acknowledge that some don't. I say a majority don't not even during a specific event.

Dude, let me explain my own views, I don't need your help. I didn't stutter, and I don't have my head in the sand as you do.

Don't get sensitive and defensive, I was explaining MY views not yours. If that's okay with you!

I'm all for you expressing your views, but when they regard my views I will correct you.


I think a few scares/disgusts you enough to think that's what all gay people do

Nope, I was clear.

That was my view of you, if I am wrong you tell me why an event represents all the gays in your view. If not, why even present that example of a gay lifestyle since its NOT. Not in my view that I expressed.

That was my view of you, if I am wrong you tell me why an event represents all the gays in your view.

What the???? Dude, you're doing it again. What part of "I'd agree that most gays live quite, peaceable lives" equals the Folsom Street Fair "represents all the gays" in my view? Is it that damned hard to get you libs to recognize an area of agreement, or are you just hell-bent on portraying us as clueless radical haters?



If not, why even present that example of a gay lifestyle since its NOT. Not in my view that I expressed.

It may not be THE gay lifestyle but it most certainly is A gay lifestyle. But again, I'm not just making sh*t up, I know much more than I really ever wanted to know and surely you can't believe events such as that "fair" are good for society. In fact, that's one of those things those congressional Dems could criticize as being a bad example for young people instead of one actress on a TV show puffing a fake cigarette.

Many christians choose a lifestyle that includes fornication, sodomy, greed, hateful attitudes, lust, etc. Should we post about them as well?

Many christians choose a lifestyle that includes fornication, sodomy, greed, hateful attitudes, lust, etc. Should we post about them as well?

As if you don't already, as in this post?

Well the hateful attitudes are indeed displayed in this forum. Want me to find examples of aberrant lifestyles by them elsewhere?

Christian bashing is already a sport, why do you people think your preferred groups should get a pass? I know of no Christians openly displaying their perverted behavior in a street celebration, do you? As for the hate part you really should learn to distinguish between disapproving of behavior and hating the person, that was my point about your children. I doubt you stop loving them if they do something that disappoints you.

Many christians choose a lifestyle that includes fornication, sodomy, greed, hateful attitudes, lust, etc. Should we post about them as well?

I don't know how this became a discussion on Christians, for the record Karma such people are not following a Christian life style and if you have observed lately there seems to be a backlash in some countries against a gay lifestyle, not everyone agrees that people should just do whatever takes their fancy.

There is more to Christianity than just a belief in Christ, it should bring about change

why do you people think your preferred groups should get a passThat's my exact point.

Cheers,

NK.

I don't know how this became a discussion on ChristiansShow me a non-christian that has posted their dislike for gays.

Show me a non-christian that has posted their dislike for gays.

I don't presume to know the disposition of everyone here in regard to spiritual beliefs, nor do I presume to know their opinion regarding gay life style and you should learn to seperate opinions regarding life style from opinions regarding people. I don't happen to be in favour of the life style of murderers, pedophiles, prostitutes, pimps and theives either

Its partly why Alec Baldwin got fired from MSNBC, hating on gays. But it's much more acceptable to be a liberal homophobe.

The problem is that gays see any reference to their lifestyle as hate mail

The problem is that gays see any reference to their lifestyle as hate mail

Some do, like GLAAD, it's their whole reason for being - hence the "Duck Dynasty scandal."

So do Christians... and every other group that thinks they are right, and everybody else is wrong. It's a matter of opinion at best. Until you put those opinions to action.

You are right though Clete, more Americans and people of conscious embrace gay people as humans with the same rights as everyone else. No more or less a sinner that anyone else. Live your life style and have equal protection under the law. What's wrong with that?

So do Christians... and every other group that thinks they are right, and everybody else is wrong. It's a matter of opinion at best. Until you put those opinions to action.

Nah, no one holds a candle to leftist grievance mongers and haters.

Sorry Tal you won't get me to endorse such life styles, you know for a very large percentage of the world's population such life styles are anathema, I will go with the majority as being more discerning and for the record speech neither do I endorse the leftist ideas of the environmental lobby or the extreme right wing ideas of the NRA. I don't endorse violent protests by anyone. We don't need income redistribution what we need is equity. We should pay the janitor more than the CEO afterall he has to get his hands dirty

How about we make the CEO do the janitor's job, too.

A CEO should get out among the workers, they can identify problems he is not being told about, and it is hoped that part of the path to being a CEO included some meniel tasks along the way. I don't believe in a graduate being parachuted into a top job

I don't happen to be in favour of the life style of murderers, pedophiles, prostitutes, pimps and theives eitherSo you equate homosexuality with those. I guess that's your problem right there. You need to stay out of people's personal lives. Those other things are criminal acts against other people. I realize you don't see the difference but millions of us do.

Nah, no one holds a candle to leftist grievance mongers and haters.Nope, no one hold a candle to the righty grievance mongers and haters. This board and many like it are excellent examples.

That's rich coming from you.

So even if you could get healthcare on the website why would you want to?

World's greatest hacker calls Healthcare.gov security 'shameful' | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/01/16/world-greatest-hacker-calls-healthcaregov-security-shameful/)

Wonder what he would say about Targets, or Neiman Marcus security? Or a school? Or church? Or the movies?

At least they're required to tell us if our info might have been compromised, the regime doesn't have to. But come on Tal, we've known this for months now, how in the heck can we trust a government that puts our personal data at risk that egregiously?

Maryland, the state that comes close to matching Oregon's ineptitude for it's Obamacare exchange website, the state whose site was directing people to other states (http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/blog/bal-health-care-zip-code-glitch,0,4689141.story#ixzz2pftAhRhf) - is now directing them to a Seattle Pottery store (http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/bs-md-health-exchange-folo-20140118,0,2367412.story).

Way to go, guys, good job.

when you have nothing to say, better to say nothing at all. The web has a way of confusing addresses particularly when assisted

Sorry, it's garbage in, garbage out - and these exchange sites were nothing but garbage.

I get the idea that there was a whole lot of garbage associated with the ACA implementation and it might take some time for it all to become obvious. This is what you get when you have a program drawn up by a committee with the help of the industry. if you want to kill something, you first stuff it up......................

The "program" as your calling it (ACA) is legislation seperate from the implimentation portion. The people that created the mess were corny's of number 2. That is mostly what this mess is about. Had they gotten honest people to do the work in the first place they would have had something that would work. But instead they gave out a sweetheart deal to friends of Michele and we get this mess to deal with. It is absolutley dumbfounding.

Now that Arthur Anderson Consulting (Accenture)has taken on the gig ,we have nothing else to worry about .

Ah yes the professional solution. How big are the consulting fees? How big are the kickbacks?

And dad there is nothing dumbfoundin' about it, just dumb, but what can youse expect when youse gets some dumb ......... in the whitehouse. It's 'lations and friends of 'lations everywhere

Arthur Anderson consulting has strong ties to the political left... specifically an Uber liberal think tank. THey are just another crony as its still a no bid contract handed out without any vetting.

what do you expect? transparency? look you invite bids they bid and you appoint them anyway, saves time

Except the whole bidding part never took place... they gave it to someone else they owed a political favor to.

So, cronieism takes many forms, when you can say the republicans are free of it, then you can criticise the process. Look I know there should be rules regarding the provision of services to government and there should be a tender process, but sometimes there has to be action, the time for form is past. so the original contact should have been subject to a tender process, but an emergency fix, well............

You may remember Arthur Anderson from the Enron days .

Yes we remember Arthur Anderson and I recall there was something racial there too

We were accused of that in Iraq... when there really wasn't any other company in the USA large enough to do the work... there are THOUSANDS of software companies just in the east coast that would have loved a chance to bid on that contract if it hadn't been handed to a Canadian company to begin with PURELY because they were friends with the wannabe Queen. And all of them would have done a better jo at a fraction of the cost.....which by the way they should be sued to recover the wasted money.

smoothy just maybe those companies hadn't made the right contributions. You and I both know the piper must be paid. look I don't think the Obama's are particularly savvy and all the savvy they had went out the window after the last election. They are beyond the pale now and as far as recovering money is concerned that is a commercial legal matter, if they don't do it you can pursue it when you gain power

maybe you know what went down or maybe you are like the rest of us and draw inferences from the media. opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one

They had savvy? I never saw any even BEFORE his first election... I saw an arrogant blohard... time has proven I was right all along. Anyone that ever fell for his crap was seriously gullible...and I do NOT see myself as being above being suckered....because I have been. Just not by that amature.

You fell for Bush, so I can agree with your position.

My work for the last 28 years has had me be exposed frequently to things before the media saw it... and many times a lot of stuff they never were exposed to, a lot of it I wasn't even supposed to be seeing. My job however hinged on keeping my yap shut about what I saw and where... and it offered me many, many opportunities to see how they twist and invent "facts" to fit their agenda. So often I haven't taken any medias reporting on things as absolute fact for many many years.

No there are no absolute facts anymore just opinion and perspective, journalism has suffered and it isn't often we get fearless reporting.

I think we have all learned much from the events of the last few years and in particular, politicians are to be trusted even less than we thought, and must not be allowed to operate without oversight. We have been given great insight from the activities of Assange and Snowden and some governments have had to take a close look at the activities of their agencies. I see a need for greater oversight

Snowden may be a spy for all we know. But select oversight makes sense. Letting foreign intelligence friend/foe/competitor know what you are doing and how and when makes no sense though. I mean if EVERYBODY has spies EVERWHERE does it make sense that you don't?

No one is suggesting intelligence shouldn't be gathered but bugging the phone, etc, of foreign leaders is going too far. There needs to be a reason like eminent threat for doing it. Targets need to be clearly identified and judicial clearance obtained. Gathering intelligence on everyone is a step too far, the Gestapo has been re-established in the person of the NSA

Actually other foreign leaders are the first people EVERY countries spy agencies try to bug first... for the obvious reasons.

Anyone that claims differently either doesn't know what they are talking about... or are liars.


As far as Snowden goes.....He knew what he was getting into....he violated the law and the terms of his security clearnaces.....and I hope he pays for it.

If he didn't like what he was seeing he should have simply quit and went to work someplace else. As far as I'm concerned he deserves prison rape. I have zero sympathy for him.

The NSA is the one you know about. You saying no one else in the world is tapping world leaders? Or is it just the US that shouldn't do it. Bet Merkel has her own spies. Putin does too!

Tal even we are guilty of tapping other leaders on their home ground, I'm saying it shouldn't be done because of the problems it causes when discovered. Relationships that have taken years to build are destroyed, even if it wasn't the same administration, reality says it was the same agency, the same ministry, the same policy and it is even worse when you do it to your allies

If Long Term Care costs paid by Medicaid can be collected from the patient's estate, shouldn't Medicaid health coverage be the same? However, one or more states have already passed legislation continuing collection only from nursing home patients, and exempting those receiving Medicaid healthcare. And maybe that is appropriate and I just don't understand the distinction.

[A 54-year-old former lawyer from New York City, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she will be looking for a job soon, said that despite the prospect of free insurance, she did not enroll in Medicaid because she owns an $850,000 apartment she hopes to bequeath to a family member.

“I don't want my assets to be raided after my death,” she said. “The idea that someone can come after my house after I die — I just can't do it.”
Advocates are pressing the Obama administration to specify that new Medicaid recipients nationally should not be subject to asset recovery.]

Little-known aspect of Medicaid now causing people to avoid coverage - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/little-known-aspect-of-medicaid-now-causing-people-to-avoid-coverage/2014/01/23/deda52e2-794e-11e3-8963-b4b654bcc9b2_story.html)

The other shoe is about to drop. When Obama explained what he really meant when he said folks could keep their insurance if they liked it, he said he was talking about employer based plans, not the only 5% who had private plans. Now, even that explanation made to explain the original blunder is not holding water as employers are sending their employees to the exchanges. So, those folks can't keep their plan if they liked it either. The incorrect information (I don't know if it was lying or just plain incompetence) doesn't bother me as much as the stupidity of the administration not anticipating that employers would take this way out. Especially with temporary workers, even if (big if, I think) the employer mandate starts in 2015, there will be no penalty for these companies due to the limited hours these employees work. The companies are just legally minimizing their expenses, and doing what the ACA allows.
Marc Thiessen: The lie that hangs over the State of the Union - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-the-lie-that-hangs-over-the-state-of-the-union/2014/01/27/ce0841aa-8762-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html?hpid=z3)

I believe it's all a lie. Meanwhile, retiring VA Rep Jim Moran had some comments on Obamacare.


Man, Representative Jim Moran (D., Virginia) is offering some blunt truths Democrats don’t want to hear (http://wamu.org/news/14/01/24/moran_not_enough_millenials_using_health_care_exch ange), now that he’s announced his retirement.

What’s striking is that Moran isn’t offering the usual, “well, we don’t have enough young people signing up for insurance, but we still have time.” He’s saying, “I don’t think we’re going to get enough.” He’s not clinging to hope anymore.

Congressman Jim Moran (D-Va.) is voicing concern that the entirety Affordable Care Act could unravel because not enough young people are signing up . . .

“I’m afraid that the millennials, if you will, are less likely to sign up. I think they feel more independent, I think they feel a little more invulnerable than prior generations,” Moran says. “But I don’t think we’re going to get enough young people signing up to make this bill work as it was intended to financially.”

If Moran’s prediction is correct, the whole law could unravel. He says there just isn’t enough incentive for healthy young people to sign up for insurance.

“And, frankly, there’s some legitimacy to their concern because the government spends about $7 for the elderly for every $1 it spends on the young,” Moran says.

Moran supported covering everyone under Medicare, which would have been expensive but have avoided this problem. Now Moran is running short on solutions.

“I just don’t know how we’re going to do it frankly,” he says. “If we had a solution I’d be telling the president right now.”




But again it's not like we didn't warn of such problems, but it's no surprise Dems are blaming Republicans for not wanting to keep Obamacare or help fix their disaster.




The article closes with,
Democrats say another part of the problem is that Republicans remain bent on repealing the law and aren’t working with them to reform some of the glaring flaws in it.



First, why is it outrageous for Republicans to attempt to repeal a law that even its supporters are now saying isn’t working, as Moran says, or that has “glaring flaws”?


Secondly, what Democratic bill to reform some of the “glaring flaws” are Republicans blocking?


Thirdly, what “reform” would get millennials to sign up for a product that they already must purchase, or else pay a special tax of 1 percent of their income?
Good questions.

blaming Republicans for not wanting to keep ObamacareWhich is silly since the Repubs main goal is to destroy ACA.

Most democrats don't want it either... not to mention most Independents. In fact there is no group that has a majority that actually wants it... outside of non-voting, non-taxpaying illegal aliens.

that would be the majority of the 1% would it, the majority of the money? what group actually has a majority in your country? the Jews? the blacks? the hispanics? the wasps? the aged? the employed? the racists? oh I know it's welfare recipricants. I quess you could say they don't want it if it costs money

What is interesting is that the republicans arn't the majority, at least not on the basis of the votes cast for the President, in fact they only represent white interests and so are steadily losing in the support stakes

Good news, the CBO projects Obamacare will effect 3 times as many jobs as previously projected (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304626804579362691500388668?mod=rs s_US_News&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB1000 1424052702304626804579362691500388668.html%3Fmod%3 Drss_US_News)...


The Affordable Care Act (http://online.wsj.com/public/page/health-law-rollout.html?lc=int_mb_1001) is projected to reduce the number of full-time workers by roughly 2.3 million people through 2021 and insure 2 million fewer people this year than previously estimated, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday.

The CBO had previously estimated the labor force impact would be around 800,000 people in that time frame. …

The rolling impact of the law will lead to 2 million fewer workers in 2017, 2.3 million in 2021 and 2.5 million through 2024, the CBO forecast. This represents a 1.5% to 2.0% reduction in the numbers of hours worked. …CBO attributed the law’s projected labor force impact to several factors. This included an impact on labor supply from an employer penalty in the law and “an effect from encouraging part-year workers to delay returning to work in order to retain their insurance subsidies,” among other things.

I'm thinking it may be about time to just quit my job and go all in on government handouts.

Your wife will put a boot up your arse if you do.

Become a politician and suck up to tons of lobbyists! That's the way to the bank!

"I'm thinking of quitting my job and go all in on government handouts"

Better still become a CEO or something similar and get upper class welfare.
It pays a lot better.

it's not easy Tutt you have to be aboriginal, deaf, blind and stupid

Remember when Obamacare was going to be a job creator? Good times, good times...

FLASHBACK: Pelosi Says Obamacare Will “Create 4 Million Jobs, 400,000 Almost Immediately”… | Weasel Zippers (http://weaselzippers.us/171375-flashback-pelosi-says-obamacare-will-create-4-million-jobs-400000-almost-immediately/)

Now that the CBO has projected a couple million fewer jobs thanks to Obamacare, how do you suppose the WH would spin this? It's a positive thing. I guess that's what Obama meant when he talked up "opportunity" in his SOTU speech, Obamacare gives the "opportunity" - er, "choice" to stay home with the wife and kids more and suck off the government teat and enjoy our "freedom (http://twitchy.com/2014/02/04/cool-it-america-jay-carney-says-freedom-aint-nothin-but-a-buzzword/)."


"It’s not anything but an added choice that they have that allows them more freedom, to use a certain buzzword, more choice," he said.

...

The White House called this "positive" because, the Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/4/cbo-obamacare-push-2m-workers-out-labor-market/) said, "it means Americans will forgo jobs or extra work to stay home with their children or strike out on their own as entrepreneurs."

Ah, choice. Shame we may not have the choice to keep our full time jobs, or to the choice to not pay thousands more in premiums and deductibles, or the choice to keep our doctors, but we can darn sure choose to become like Greece now.

You chose that path long ago

Not me.

The facts:

CBO director: Obamacare will reduce unemployment (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/02/05/cbo-director-obamacare-will-reduce-unemployment/)

More FACTS:

CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2014 to 2024 (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010)

No, CBO did not say Obamacare will kill 2 million jobs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/02/04/no-cbo-did-not-say-obamacare-will-kill-2-million-jobs/)

Eric Cantor's False Claims Against CBO Report Debunked (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/04/eric-cantor-cbo_n_4726892.html?affordable-care-act)

So if we're all wrong why are the White House and congressional Dems spinning this (http://hotair.com/archives/2014/02/05/pelosi-fighting-job-lock-lets-americans-follow-their-passion-like-leaving-the-workforce/www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2014/02/pelosi-cbo-report-shows-obamacare-gives-americans-freedom-to-follow-their-passion) to make it sound so positive? People get to "choose" to work less and suck off the government more, that's what I said and that's not a good thing.

Oil and retail suck more, much more, and that's okay with you?

Speech, you are going to have to get used to the idea that people get to work less, this is the inevitable result of sending jobs offshore and the changing nature of work. Unfortunately there are employers who will exploit this by making those who have employment work longer hours without extra remuneration

What part of obamacare creates disincentives to work do you not get, how is that a good thing and what does it have to do with oil? Focus, Tal.

Hello Steve:

Wealth creates a disincentive to work, too. But, I don't hear you sniveling about that.

excon

Hello Steve:

Wealth creates a disincentive to work, too. But, I don't hear you sniveling about that.

excon

One can support themselves and the other can't.

I rarely see a wealthy person stop working just because they don't need to do it for financial stability . If anything they are often even more motivated .

Hello again, tom:


I rarely see a wealthy person stop working just because they don't need to do it for financial stability . If anything they are often even more motivated .I rarely see a poor person refrain from working just because they're getting benefits. If anything, being poor acts as a big motivator.

Of course, my view of the world doesn't reflect the right wings view. You see a welfare queen everywhere you look.

excon

Hello again, tom:

I rarely see a poor person refrain from working just because they're getting benefits. If anything, being poor acts as a big motivator.

Of course, my view of the world doesn't reflect the right wings view. You see a welfare queen everywhere you look.

excon

You create welfare queens everywhere you turn.

You can already work at Walmart and be a welfare queen too. What's the difference?

You guys are surreal.

Hello again, Steve:

Surreal.. Is that when you don't BELIEVE your own EYES???? You're sooooo ingrained with right wing thinking, you imagine people on welfare sitting in front of their BIG screen TV, texting on their Obamaphone, and eating lobster on YOUR dime.

You DENY that people who work HARD at minimum wage jobs, like at Walmart or Wendy's ALSO are on food stamps, section 8 housing, and welfare... I guess you LIKE helping Walmart with their payroll... I dunno WHY.

excon

You need to get out more, don't forget your thermal under wear today.

Hello again, Steve:

Surreal.. Is that when you don't BELIEVE your own EYES???? You're sooooo ingrained with right wing thinking, you imagine people on welfare sitting in front of their BIG screen TV, texting on their Obamaphone, and eating lobster on YOUR dime.

You DENY that people who work HARD at minimum wage jobs, like at Walmart or Wendy's ALSO are on food stamps, section 8 housing, and welfare... I guess you LIKE helping Walmart with their payroll... I dunno WHY.

excon

Surreal is ing about needing to create jobs in one breath and cheering disincentives to work in the next. It is not we who can't see that most new healthcare enrollees are to Medicaid. It is not we who can't see unemployment is down largely because so many people gave up looking for work. It is not we who can't see the disconnect between every promise made about this bill, like creating 4 million jobs, "bending the cost curve downward," if you like your plan, your doctor you can keep them - is a total failure. It is not we can't see that disincentivizing work by way of subsidies and penalties is bad for the economy and budget. Even the Chicago Tribune gets it (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-obamacare-cbo-edit-0206-20140206,0,7698538.story)...


The Congressional Budget Office issued a sobering report this week that projected how many people will choose to work less because of the effects of the Affordable Care Act. CBO predicts that the health care law will shrink the number of hours worked by the equivalent of 2 million full-time jobs. That's about twice the impact that CBO predicted in 2010, when the law was signed.
That doesn't mean 2 million people will be thrown out of work by Obamacare, as some critics asserted.


It does mean many workers will have less incentive to work. Some will gain welcome flexibility — if they have clung to jobs just to keep employer-based health care, they will have access to coverage that's not conditioned on holding a job.


But, and here's where the impact is likely pernicious, some will quit or work less precisely because they'll now qualify for Medicaid or for subsidies under the law. In effect, they'll have a government incentive to be less productive. Some higher-income workers also will have a disincentive — higher taxes under Obamacare — for providing more labor. That is, a disincentive to work.

Government subsidies that persuade people to be less productive are not healthy for the nation. They're also costly. Which goes to the more alarming news that came out of the CBO this week.


The CBO — as close as you'll get in Washington to a nonpartisan source of information — released its federal budget projections for the next 10 years. The prospect is bleak:


The agency projects that annual deficits will stabilize through 2017 but then will launch into a long rise. By the most useful measure — debt as a percentage of our gross domestic product — the CBO sees that number rising from 72.1 percent in 2013 to 79.2 percent by 2024. That would be the highest U.S. debt burden since the years after federal borrowing spiked to fight World War II.
Deficits for the decade from 2015 through 2024 are expected to total $7.9 trillion, or $1.6 trillion more than the CBO last estimated. The agency also projects slow economic growth for the country.


The upshot: Right now the federal government is running annual deficits lower than it did during the first four years of the Obama presidency. But our total debt continues to grow by huge amounts every year. As the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said in reaction to the CBO projections, "Our deficit problems are far from solved and highlight the importance of putting the debt on a clear downward path, rather than settling for projection of stability. ... The ideal fiscal plan would work to simultaneously lower debt levels and raise economic output."


To the extent that Obamacare requires billions of dollars for subsidies and also discourages workers from staying in the labor force, it's sure to thwart both of those noble goals.

But like I said, you lefties believe in magic and fairy dust. You drank the Koolaid.

You need to get out more, don't forget your thermal under wear today.

I live in the barrio, one of my best friends growing up didn't have finished walls in his tiny "bedroom" - don't tell me I need to get out more.

We have had the minority leader of the House tell us more than once that Obamacare and unemployment benefits allows folks to persue their hobbies . Jay Carney said that 2.5 million Americans leaving the workforce was a good thing, because they would no longer be “trapped in a job.”
So yeah ;it's not "us " that celebrate unemployment or Obamacare driving even more people out of the work force.
I know a guy who has a pest control business. His accountant advised him not to work so hard and make too much money because he was going to get wacked with taxes . So yeah ... the Obots have built in a bunch of disincentives to work.

it's called 'funemployment '......

Michael Van Gorkom (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=business&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Michael+Van+Gorkom%22) was laid off by Yahoo in late April. He didn't panic. He didn't rush off to a therapist. Instead, the 33-year old Santa Monica resident discovered that being jobless "kind of settled nicely." Week one: "I thought, 'OK ... I need to send out resumes, send some e-mails, need to do networking"'
Week two: "A little less."
Every week since: "I'm going to go to the beach and enjoy some margaritas."
What most people would call unemployment, Van Gorkom embraced as "funemployment."
While millions of Americans struggle to find work as they face foreclosures and bankruptcy, others have found a silver lining in the economic meltdown. These happily jobless tend to be single and in their 20s and 30s. Some were laid off. Some quit voluntarily, lured by generous buyouts.
Buoyed by severance, savings, unemployment checks or their parents, the "funemployed" do not spend their days poring over job listings. They travel on the cheap for weeks. They head back to school or volunteer at the neighborhood soup kitchen. And at least until the bank account dries up, they're content living for today. "
Never heard of funemployment? Here's Urban Dictionary's definition: "The condition of a person who takes advantage of being out of a job to have the time of their life. (Example:) I spent all day Tuesday at the pool; funemployment rocks!"

'Funemployed' revel in freedom from work - SFGate (http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Funemployed-revel-in-freedom-from-work-3228311.php)

Hello, again:

Here's the deal. Those jobs are NOT coming back. Why NOT enjoy it?

Look. If it were up to ME, I'd hire ALL of 'em to fix our infrastructure... You'd rather let the infrastructure AND the people who can fix it, ROT!

excon