You guys cancelled the party in 1999, for damn near 10 years. If rich guys have partied, so can everybody else and frankly, it's about time Main Street got a break. Get over it! Rich guys, so called job creators (tax dodging, haven creators is more ACCURATE) have enough loot. What?? Trillions ain't enough??

Party poopers!!

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

Stop stalling on Keystone. Barring a few environmental wackos, everyone is sick of that including Canada, a bunch of Democrats - and even Ed Schultz says build it (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/09/ed-schultz-literally-on-the-union-payroll/).

Your link further reinforces the need to get the lobbyists out of politics.

I am for Keystone too, when they have a comprehensive emergency plan for when stuff happens. Didn't we learn from Exxon, BP, and that chemical plant that poisoned the water source in West Virginia? Stuff does happen, so while we create profits for private companies, can't we demand safety, AND accountability.

Oopsie!
Pipeline rupture: Alberta resident unaware of 2009 blast - CBC News - Latest Canada, World, Entertainment and Business News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/pipeline-rupture-alberta-resident-unaware-of-2009-blast-1.2525030)

Here, you can check if there have been incidents near you:
Pipeline safety incidents - Interactive - CBC.ca (http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/pipeline-incidents/)

Chicago Oil Spill (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/chicago-oil-spill)

texas oil spill history - Bing Images (http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=texas+oil+spill+history&qpvt=texas+oil+spill+history&FORM=IGRE#a)

We have plenty already.

The southern leg is already operational (http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/196111-green-groups-blame-obama-for-oil-shipments-in-keystones-southern-leg), but I suppose you'd rather transport by rail (http://www.ksat.com/news/accident-raises-concerns-about-oil-on-rails/-/478452/24295616/-/3q7r5pz/-/index.html) or truck (http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=oil+truck+accident&FORM=HDRSC6) - or sell it to China.

Who do you think they are going to sell it to in the first place? Why should the tax payer subsidize their profits no matter who the sell it too?

Who Pays for the Keystone XL Pipeline? | Great Plains Tar Sands Pipelines (http://tarsandspipelines.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/who-pays-for-the-keystone-xl-pipeline/)

So doing business with our neghbor and creating thousands of jobs - after 2 government reports could find no reason to delay the project - is of no interest to you? Yep, time to consider going on the government teat before there's nothing left.

I know you didn't see my last link I added but taxpayers are paying for building this thing too. No more BS about sucking from a teat taxpayers are paying for.

Paying for investments with a return is one thing, government creating disincentives to work so we can subsidize them is another. One makes sense, the other is stupid.

And by the way, your link isn't too convincing.


OK. But will TransCanada’s $45 million or so pay the full costs of the project?
Almost certainly not...

That’s $4 million more than TransCanada will apparently pay NPPD for the upgrades...

So it appears NPPD ratepayers will be paying $4 million or so...

And I don't live in Nebraska so that's their problem.

lovely attitude, goes with the begger my neighbour attitude of the fed

The Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) recently approved rate increases for its customers (http://www.columbustelegram.com/articles/2009/11/15/news/topnews/doc4aff3d505fd16991229778.txt). According to the Columbus Telegram (http://www.columbustelegram.com/), the increase will include costs for capital projects. One of those projects is electrical improvements needed for the Keystone XL pipeline: “Of the $348.2 million capital budget, approximately $45 million will be paid for by TransCanada as part of its Keystone XL Pipeline project.”

Texas is next!!

lovely attitude, goes with the begger my neighbour attitude of the fed

As opposed to sticking a finger in Canada's eye over this or blocking the project for Nebraskans? Should the beleaguered residents of Nebraska have to squeeze out a few million they will be repaid many times over economically, and that's a big IF according to Tal's link, so point to someone else over their attitude toward their neighbor.

You should at least explain where Nebraskans will get repaid many times over when you jack up their bills, instead of making a wild claim.

commercial projects shouldn't get handouts from anyone

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

maybe you think you can recreate the WPA ? Perhaps Roosevelt could get away with paying non-union wage scale ....but I doubt a similar program could get away with it again.
Or maybe you think the Hoover Dam could become reality today without a decade + of environmental reviews . Look at all the nonsense associated with the Keystone pipeline . They began construction of a new Tappan Zee Bridge here recently . The proposed project began in 1999 . That's over a decade to begin putting those workers to work . Compare that to the Hoover Dam ;a much more complex and ambitious project than putting a bridge across the Hudson River . Congress authorized it in 1928 .Construction began in 1931 and was completed in 1936 .
In today's over regulated environment and unions dominating the construction industry . It's more likely that you will end up with multiple white elephant projects like the Boston big dig .
Here in NY we pay a fortune in fuel tax and tolls ;and all that is supposed to support infrastructure. Today there were multiple reports of pot holes the size of the Grand Canyon. Where is all that revenue going ?

I am for Keystone too, when they have a comprehensive emergency plan for when stuff happens
You mean like when one of Warren Buffett's trains full of oil derails

yep, they just sop it up, if it doesn't burn off and get on with the job, you mean to say this sort of thing isn't a frequent occurence?

of course . It just doesn't get sensationalized like a pipeline spill.
Train carrying fuel oil derails, spills in Mississippi | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/31/us-train-derail-mississippi-idUSBREA0U1QK20140131)

Really? Lac Mégantic?

Guess a train derailment that kills 42 people and wipes out half of the down town area aint no biggie .

As the article says .....
Friday's accident follows a spate of explosive derailments of trains carrying crude oil over the past year that has raised questions about safety, especially of some older tank cars prone to puncture.

You should at least explain where Nebraskans will get repaid many times over when you jack up their bills, instead of making a wild claim.

I said economically, you don't think all those new jobs and the money spent in Nebraska won't be worth many times over $4 million? I'd be willing to bet the farm that's more likely than Porkulus ever gave in return.

Guess a train derailment that kills 42 people and wipes out half of the down town area aint no biggie .

Even WaPo makes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/keystone-report-from-state-dept-puts-common-sense-back-in-the-pipeline/2014/02/05/ae82cf7a-8d21-11e3-95dd-36ff657a4dae_print.html) that case now...


Keystone report from State Dept. puts common sense back in the pipeline By Editorial Board (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-posts-view/2011/12/07/gIQAoEIscO_page.html), Published: February 5

ENVIRONMENTALISTS HAVE drawn a line in the sand on the Keystone XL pipeline. It’s the wrong line in the wrong sand, far away from any realistic assessment of the merits — as yet another government analysis (http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/finalseis/index.htm) has confirmed. It’s past time for President Obama to set aside politics and resolve this bizarre distraction of an issue.


The State Department’s latest study (http://keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/documents/organization/221135.pdf) — the product of more than five years of investigation — largely confirms the conclusions of previous assessments and those of many independent energy experts: Allowing the firm Trans­Canada to build Keystone XL, which would run across the Canadian border to Steele City, Neb., is unlikely to have significant effects on climate-change-causing greenhouse gas emissions. That’s because its construction, or its rejection, would not significantly affect the extraction of tar sands bitumen, an oil-like substance, in Alberta. Even if the president rejects Keystone XL and no other pipelines out of Alberta are built, the crude could still travel by rail and barge — with marginally higher greenhouse emissions and a higher likelihood of accident. One hundred eighty thousand barrels of Canadian crude already moves on train cars every day.



Pipeline or train passing through your town? It's coming either way.

Even with Keystone you still have the old rupturing pipes in the ground, and the messes they made as those derailments continue to happen. If you think a new pipeline for oil to be sold overseas for private profit and walk away from the messes yet to be cleaned up, by taxpayers instead of the companies that made the mess is a good idea then you have no good idea.


Speech already said he cares more about the Canadians turning a buck than the Nebraskans getting a fair shake. Sounds good on paper (50 permanent jobs), and all you have to do is raise the utility rates of ordinary citizens. Raise the taxes of the ones who profit from this deal makes more sense.

Guess a train derailment that kills 42 people and wipes out half of the down town area aint no biggie .Man you are one cold dude. It was a disaster, families and homes were torn apart. I guess if it doesn't happen near you it doesn't matter.

Speech already said he cares more about the Canadians turning a buck than the Nebraskans getting a fair shake.

I said no such thing.

Man you are one cold dude. It was a disaster, families and homes were torn apart. I guess if it doesn't happen near you it doesn't matter.

No he isn't, you're just still chalenged by sarcasm and apparently obsessed with hating on conservatives.

apparently obsessed with hating on conservativesHow so? I was commenting on tom's answer, not on conservatives as a whole.
This whole Current Events board is based on 3 or 4 people hating everything liberal so you are in no position to admonish me.

It's what happens when you run rail full of hazardous materials through communities .The Keystone would not be cut through the middle of a downtown.So any spills that Tal is moaning about would have far less potential for human disaster .

How so? I was commenting on tom's answer, not on conservatives as a whole.

You called me "nasty" the other day after I made a sarcastic remark and called him cold for doing the same. Stop making it personal and learn what sarcasm is.


This whole Current Events board is based on 3 or 4 people hating everything liberal so you are in no position to admonish me.

Nonsense, there's just as much if not more hating all things conservative, if you don't like it here you don't have to show up.

It's a good place to find out what the right-wings are telling their people what the talking points are for the day. It's entertaining to correct you guys on the misinformation you spew - it usually takes only 10 sec of reading a source, something you guys rarely do.

And yes, sarcasm can be cold and nasty. If the shoe fits...

The irony.

So if Obamacare is "the law of the land" as you lefties keep reminding us, why does he keep changing it, illegally I would add?

Obama Looks to Illegally Change Obamacare . . . Again | National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/370589/obama-looks-illegally-change-obamacare-again-charles-c-w-cooke)

Yet again the conservatives have found a new excuse to do nothing.

You are the one that keeps saying it's the law, well is it or isn't it? Or is it whatever the president says it is?

I have given you links already to the provisions in the law that specifically were written to address the glitch and problems that were foreseen. You chose to ignore instead of read, so your spin is bogus, and so is the source of your link this morning. Its spin for the uninformed.

We call that hollering loud and saying nothing in my barrio and prevents any reasonable discussion of facts, policy, and procedure. Case in point, your authors dismissing totally the written law as described by "the secretary shall" which implicitly is followed by a procedure to rectify, when applicable for good reason, the practical physical effects of implementation of said policy.

Where exactly in the law does it give the president flexibility to extend mandates? Do you even know what mandate means, what the word "shall" means?

how do you extend a mandate? an mandate means you have the authority to implement or rule, either he has a mandate or not. If a policy is taken to an election it is usually presumed that the victor has a mandate to implement that policy. What is happening here is the loser is in denial. You can argue over the detail but you can't deny the mandate. So the President had a mandate for the ACA and the legislature argued about the detail and even the judiciary doesn't deny the mandate or even the detail..

What I don't get is why don't you get on with cooperating in the implementation, if there is error you can help correct it

What you don't get is this President has no regard for the law. This is entirely political, all about elections and power. Meanwhile the people got screwed, we lost the insurance we wanted and could afford, we're paying much more out of pocket, we may not get to keep our doctors, we get to fund more people's lifestyle who choose not to work thanks to the disincentive to work, more people on Medicaid and good luck using the websites that still don't work and may compromise your personal data due to shoddy security. What the hell should we cooperate in, getting screwed more?

can't see he has no regard for the law he has used executive orders less than others, what you don't like is what you got, I can understand that because it isn't universal health care but a scheme that you get what you can pay for with a minimum standard, it is free enterprise gone mad. There are many ways health care can be provided, taxation is one, private insurers are another but obviously the insurers couldn't be trusted to regulate themselves and so they whorted their clients, to change that obviously meant it was going to cost someone and we have never known an insurance company to be ultimately out of pocket.

i can see the implementation was poorly handled but you must blame the industry for that, vested interests had to be served, you see he had a mandate to broaden access to health insurance. The way we handled is if you are not insured you get a tax surcharge and access to a certain level of benefit and effectively that is what you have done because the insurers wanted everyone in the scheme. When we did it everyone started to opt out of health insurance and just rely on the government benefit, obviously you couldn't allow that to happen because you have your states involved. The government should be setting caps on premiums

Yes, he lags far behind his hero FDR who issued 3,522. It's not the use of EOs as much as it is the substance of them. The emperor is past pushing the envelope on legality.

We had to build a floor first, but some rather go with a bare minimum, because its dirt cheap. Doesn't matter that its worthless if you need it.

We had to build a floor first, but some rather go with a bare minimum, because its dirt cheap. Doesn't matter that its worthless if you need it.

And we're back to this line of reasoning even if that's one of things Obama did by fiat was decide those worthless plans were ok to keep after all...after most people lost them. That's the problem with this shameless political maneuvering Tal, it fixes nothing. What is the point of delay, it fixes nothing.

well you can always fix it at the ballot box or can you?

Obama's opinion and fix means nothing, since the states are the ones who ultimately decide the policy and laws they write, enforce, or change in there own states. I have already pointed out that the procedure for resolving state conflicts, and concerns, with the federal law (ACA), is an extensive one and rather lengthy, but was funded 4 years ago in every state. Some made better use of it than others, but if you have a problem with it, talk to your own state commissioners, or regulatory body (in Texas, you county official).

In addition "if you like your doctor you can keep them" is not up to you, but up to your doctor AND your insurance provider.

That's what you get when you have a free market capitalist private system collaboration, instead of a consumer based one. But we have had that argument before and sorry Speech if you have failed to acknowledge, or recognize, what your own state, and private insurance companies, and hospital groups, are doing right under your nose.

I read every link every poster provides, and you should do the same. Then you conservatives and TParty types wouldn't miss what some states are doing in collusion with private industry that takes not only money, but options and opportunities right out of your pocket.

No, that's what you get when you have incompetent boobs building a cr@p sandwich for everyone based on a throwaway campaign line. YOu can keep shifting the blame and spreading the BS about it all you want but the Dems in the WH and congress own this.

And this is how you guys "fix" things.

45650

LOL, its so easy to ignore that more will be helped than hindered. Your fix is to let the few be served, and the many be thrown back under the bus.

Some fix!!

If Obamacare is so great why does he keep delaying it? It's a simple question, Tal, but then I understand your side's idea of "helping" others is forcing those of us who do work and take responsibility for our lives to subsidize those who won't (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/douthat-leaving-work-behind.html?_r=1) in addition to those who CAN'T, because apparently money grows on trees.


And this is where liberalism has a very important choice to make. It's possible to defend Obamacare's overall goals while also recognizing its potentially perverse effects, and conceding that we should try to minimize the number of low-skilled workers exiting the labor market.

But it's also possible to argue that as a rich, post-scarcity society, we shouldn't really care that much about whether the poor choose to work. The important thing is just making sure they have a decent standard of living, full stop, and if they choose Keynesian leisure over a low-paying job, that's their business.

No Ross, it IS my business when you're taking my hard-earning money to pay for their laziness, but I do not expect any of you true believers to use your brains long enough to figure out how inherently unfair and ignorant that is, not to mention impractical. Ask Greece.

Nobody says it was great, but so far detractors or not its better for the many than it was before the law. Without the ACA you would be hollering about how the insurance company is taking more of your money. If you quit hollering and ask specific questions, you can get answers.

Not from ideologically driven blogs either.

You can just keep pretending it's a good thing if you want but we know we got screwed and Dems know we got screwed. Why do you think no one wants Obama to campaign for him this year?

You mean dems in red states? Kind of obvious isn't it? They need conservative votes to keep there jobs. It's always been that way.

remember when Sebillius said there would be no delays ?
Sebelius: Obamacare "delay is not an option" - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sebelius-obamacare-delay-is-not-an-option/)

LOL, she obviously meant delay tactics from the right.

So the regime that has freed us from the tyranny of the law has made more stuff up (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/370909/obama-adds-irrationality-lawlessness-while-threatening-prosecution-andrew-c-mccarthy) with no statutory authority to do so.



I am not just talking about the president’s (latest) illegal waiver of the employer mandate, which yet again delays (this time, to 2016) the requirement that businesses with 50 to 99 employees must provide Obama-certified coverage or pay crushing fines – a desperate political calculation to accommodate Democrats who face angry voters this November. I am talking about the other bomb administration officials dropped in announcing this unconstitutional edict.

Obama’s central command policies are inevitably crashing into each other. The waiver may provide some relief to endangered Democrats, but it also gives employers an incentive to lay off employees in order to get under 100 and qualify for the illegal waiver. So Obama has unilaterally legislated illegal conditions on the illegal waiver. To wit, employers will be required to certify to the IRS, under penalty of perjury, that the waiver was not a motivating factor in the company’s hiring and firing decisions. As Fox News’s Chris Stirewalt quips (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/11/thought-police-firms-must-swear-obamacare-not-factor-in-firings/), “To avoid ObamaCare costs you must swear that you are not trying to avoid ObamaCare costs.”



So now Obama, like a standard-issue leftist dictator, is complementing lawlessness with socialist irrationality.



Think about how lunatic this is. There is nothing even faintly illegal about businesses’ – indeed, all economic actors’ – making financial decisions based on tax consequences. (And remember, notwithstanding Obama’s misrepresentations to the contrary, Obamacare mandates are taxes – as Obama’s Justice Department argued and as Chief Justice Roberts & Co. concluded.) The tax consequences of Obamacare are profound – that is precisely the reason that Obama is “waiving” them. No responsible officers in a corporation of relevant size would fail to take them into account in making the decision to staff at over or under 100 employees; in determining whether some full-time employees should be terminated or shifted to part-time; or in making any number of the decisions Obamacare’s mind-numbing complexity requires.



The officers’ responsibility is to the owners of the company, the shareholders. The business exists to create value, not to provide employment – employing workers is a function of the value added to the enterprise, not the need to create a more favorable election environment for the statist political party. Corporate officers who overlooked material tax consequences would be unfit to be corporate officers.


What is illegal and irrational is not a company’s commonsense deliberation over its costs, it is Obama’s edict. And look what attends this one: criminal prosecution if Obama’s Justice Department decides the business has falsely certified that its staffing decision was not motivated by Obamacare.



Think about that for a second. The waiver is illegal. It flouts the language of the Obamacare statute, under which the employer mandate is required already to have been implemented by now. There is nothing in the law that empowers Obama to waive the mandate, much less to attach lawless conditions to such a lawless waiver. A business that seeks the waiver and fails to pay the mandated tax (in lieu of providing the required coverage) is in violation of federal statutory law, regardless of its compliance with Obama’s outlaw edict. The payments required by the statute, after all, are owed to the public, not to Obama – he’s got no authority to deprive the government of these funds just because it would harm Democrats to collect them.


Yet, Obama proclaims his illegal waiver with impunity – Congress apparently unwilling to stop him. You, on the other hand, will be prosecuted for breaking the “law” if you do not comply to Obama’s satisfaction with the illegal and irrational condition he has unilaterally placed on his illegal waiver.



So not only has he illegally granted these waivers he's giving businessmen incentives to perjure themselves - so he can blather on about how Obamacare is not costing jobs. Are none of you people disturbed by this man yet? Are you anxious to see what a TP president might do with this type of abuse of power?

This (http://www.keyc.com/story/24770657/mn-lawmakers-talk-farm-bill-aca-at-ag-symposium) is what your Democrats are going to be facing this election (if they show up). If they get in Minnesota you can count on them getting it elsewhere.


The lawmakers fielded other questions as well, talking debt and immigration reform, but it was the question about the struggling health care law that everyone in the audience wanted to see answered, and two out of the three Democrats on the dais seemed hesitant to tackle.


The question: "I thought the Affordable Care Act would save $2500 per family. What happened?"


After Sen. Klobuchar and Rep. Walz looked at each other, laughter broke out in the room.


Rep. Peterson quickly picked up the microphone to say, "I voted 'no', so I'll let these guys handle that," to the applause of the crowd.


Both Klobuchar and Walz said they were aware of the problems, and wanted to find ways to fix it.

Walz says, "This health discussion has got to be broader, it's got to point out where there are weaknesses and failures, it's got to make sure we're not leaving people behind or distorting the system. But don't pretend there was some type of safe harbor before this where everything was just peachy keen."



I'm surprised Walz didn't tout the opportunity to escape "job lock." (http://capitolcityproject.com/three-west-virginia-daycare-centers-closing-partly-due-obamacare/)

Senate Dems are asking Why Didn’t Someone Tell Us Obamacare Would Cut Medicare? (http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/371539/senate-democrats-why-didnt-someone-tell-us-obamacare-would-cut-medicare-jim) You can't make this stuff up.

Meanwhile, "Covered" Californians are asking why we can't see a doctor (http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/02/19/another-cbs13-viewer-says-doctors-denying-covered-california-plan/)? I'd say it's because those Dems who didn't bother to read the law and lied about it's greatness screwed you over.

And now we have at least one desperate Dem who would vote to repeal.
(http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/371663/manchin-i-will-vote-tomorrow-repeal-obamacare-andrew-johnson)

A first Democratic senator has indicated he thinks it might be time to scrap Obamacare. While legislators should work to fix the law in the meantime, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia told (http://www.register-herald.com/local/x2039929085/Manchin-speaks-on-a-variety-of-topics-answers-questions) Beckley’s Register Herald that he would support getting rid of the law entirely.


“I will vote tomorrow to repeal [the Affordable Care Act], but I want to fix the problems in it,” Manchin told an audience.



Who'll join him?

Not me or anybody else who NEEDS the law. So be like Manchin and start fixing it to fit more peoples NEEDS. You don't have the votes to repeal, and you lost in court, so start fixing already.

Not me or anybody else who NEEDS the law. So be like Manchin and start fixing it to fit more peoples NEEDS. You don't have the votes to repeal, and you lost in court, so start fixing already.

You guys are in charge, dude, what have you done to fix it?

Keep you guys from repealing it.

Keep you guys from repealing it.

Wow, that's an impressive "fix," what exactly has that fixed?

A lot of people signing up and exploring their options. Options for good health they never had before.

I believe you're in the denial stage of grief.

Sebelius wants you to know Obamacare is not costing jobs, so in honor of her helpful remarks...

ObamaCare Employer Mandate: A List Of Cuts To Work Hours, Jobs - Investors.com (http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/020314-669013-obamacare-employer-mandate-a-list-of-cuts-to-work-hours-jobs.htm)



http://youtu.be/FHkxVXB37EU

Dan Henninger: The Rube Goldberg Democrats - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304275304579393170982048760?mg=ren o64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB1000 1424052702304275304579393170982048760.html)

Dan Henninger: The Rube Goldberg Democrats - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304275304579393170982048760?mg=ren o64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB1000 1424052702304275304579393170982048760.html)

Precisely.


The Rube Goldberg Democrats means that whether from laziness or arrogance, the party is now producing political contraptions that are monuments to inefficiency, incomprehension and unworkability. Before ObamaCare, it often went unnoticed. But the health-care law sits out in plain view, letting every voter connect the dots between political promise and nonperformance.

First they lie about how fantastic it will be then they lie about how fantastic it is. Obama gets the maximum 4 Pinocchios for his Medicaid claim.

Obama’s claim that 7 million got ‘access to health care for the first time’ because of his Medicaid expansion (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/02/24/obamas-claim-that-7-million-got-access-to-health-care-for-the-first-time-because-of-obamacares-medicaid-expansion/)


After the lie of the year his nose is getting remarkably long.

45713

Like that's the only lie in town,

Issa's 'suspicions' that Hillary Clinton told Panetta to 'stand down' on Benghazi (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/02/21/issas-suspicions-that-hillary-clinton-told-panetta-to-stand-down-on-benghazi/?tid=up_next)

Like that's the only lie in town,

Issa’s ‘suspicions’ that Hillary Clinton told Panetta to ‘stand down’ on Benghazi (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/02/21/issas-suspicions-that-hillary-clinton-told-panetta-to-stand-down-on-benghazi/?tid=up_next)

Wrong thread, this is about the crap sandwich called (less and less) Obamacare.

I thought it was about getting caught lying.

I thought it was about getting caught lying.

Nope, it was lying about Obamacare - still. There's a Benghazi thread if you wish to take up Issa's off the cuff remarks.

Issa: Administration lying about HealthCare.gov | TheHill (http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/196628-issa-administration-lying-about-healthcaregov)

Obamacare Website's Biggest Security Threat May Be Darrell Issa (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/10/obamacare-website-darrell-issa_n_4569255.html)

http://crooksandliars.com/heather/cbs-schieffer-allows-issa-repeat-debunked-

Sun Rises In East, Darrell Issa Lies About It (http://wonkette.com/533836/sun-rises-in-east-darrell-issa-lies-about-it)

Tried to stay on subject.

The regime has its first death panel victim (https://twitter.com/HHSGov/status/438709462094708736/photo/1), Doge.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bhab7mICYAAuSpS.jpg

Surprise! Another unilateral change to Obamacare designed exclusively to help Democrats win elections, i.e. not have to face the consequences of their stupid law, which by the time they get done with it will be totally unworkable.


The Obama administration is set to announce another major delay in implementing the Affordable Care Act, easing election pressure on Democrats.


As early as this week, according to two sources, the White House will announce a new directive allowing insurers to continue offering health plans that do not meet ObamaCare’s minimum coverage requirements.


Prolonging the “keep your plan” fix will avoid another wave of health policy cancellations otherwise expected this fall.

The cancellations would have created a firestorm for Democratic candidates in the last, crucial weeks before Election Day.


The White House is intent on protecting its allies in the Senate, where Democrats face a battle to keep control of the chamber.


“I don’t see how they could have a bunch of these announcements going out in September,” one consultant in the health insurance industry said. “Not when they’re trying to defend the Senate and keep their losses at a minimum in the House. This is not something to have out there right before the election.”


The White House and the Department of Health and Human Services on Monday both said they had no updates to announce.


Late last year, the administration was grappling with the beleaguered HealthCare.gov and millions of canceled health plans in the individual market.
Republicans noted President Obama had repeatedly promised that no one would lose their health plan if they wanted to keep it.


Obama subsequently called on states and the insurance industry to allow people to keep their existing plans for an additional year. While many states agreed, it left the administration with a dilemma.


A one-year moratorium pushed the deadline beyond the midterm election, but insurers must send out cancellation notices 90 days in advance. That would mean notices in the mail by Oct. 1, five weeks before voters go to the polls.


The administration’s decision to pursue another extension was confirmed by insurance sources who predicted a public announcement would be “imminent.” It is unclear how long the extension will be, though one source believed it could last to the end of Obama’s second term, and perhaps beyond.
This issue is sure to be discussed during the 2016 presidential race, in which Hillary Clinton is expected to run.


In November, amid the rash of health plan cancellations, former President Clinton said Obama should allow people to keep their current coverage.


“I personally believe, even if it takes a change in the law, the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they got,” Clinton said at the time.


Allowing insurers to continue offering noncompliant health plans for several years would substantially alter the health insurance landscape under ObamaCare.
It would also undercut one rationale for the healthcare reform law.
Under the Affordable Care Act, health plans are required to offer 10 medical benefits that the Obama administration deems essential.


Some of the services are popular, such as prescription drug coverage, but others, such as maternity and pediatric care, have been criticized as expensive as well as being unnecessary for many policyholders, such as older people.


Read more: New ObamaCare delay to help Democrats in midterm elections | TheHill (http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/199784-new-obamacare-delay-to-help-midterm-dems#ixzz2v0FpLQqk)
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bNYbpAvBir4Pxiacwqm_6l&u=thehill) | TheHill on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bNYbpAvBir4Pxiacwqm_6l&u=TheHill)


Of course seeing as how most of us have already had our old plans canceled I fully expect people to still be pi$$ed about it in November. But hey, I can't wait to get my first mammogram and pap smear.

Says it all.

The dismantling of obamacare continues, this time secretly.

ObamaCare's Secret Mandate Exemption - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304250204579433312607325596?mg=ren o64-wsj)

As more and more right wing horror stories get DEBUNKED!!

Woman in debunked Obamacare horror story finally speaks ... to Fox News (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/24/1279971/-Subject-of-debunked-Obamacare-horror-story-finally-speaks-to-Fox-News)#

Obamacare horror story debunked by Seattle Times columnist | The Raw Story (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/24/obamacare-horror-story-debunked-by-seattle-times-columnist/)


“So here's a family that was totally uninsured for 15 years because it had always cost at least $500 to $600 a month for skimpy policies to cover them both. And what they can get now is full coverage for $30 a month for the son and scantier coverage in the $250 to $300 a month range for the mom. How is that a horror story?”

Nice diversion, which is the official Democrat strategy, change the subject. Tell me, what's the point of "the law of the land" now that he's virtually rendered it pointless?

He's trying to save his reign from his own party's revolt. Yeah that's right . The Repubics were never on board . It's his own ranks that are threatening to leave like rats off a sunken ship. His extra-Constitutional decrees are an attempt to save his shrinking coalition.

Accommodating the fears of a few scared ducks isn't pointless. Gives them time to get their own facts for themselves. He only waived the deadlines and give them the reasons for a waiver, but any scared duck will realize they better at least look before they quack.

In a year we may not be talking about a million people, let alone in two, so what's the harm?

so what's the harm?

gee think about it ... a President who can change the law any time he deems it suitable. All hail emperor Barakus Obamanum !

I see you guys didn't miss the 50th repeal vote, and hear the 51st isn't far behind. You should try the green tomatoes and eggs, you might like it.

round and around and around we go and where we will come out, noone knows

“What kind of a constitutional structure do we have if Congress can give an agency the power to grant or not grant a religious exemption based on what the agency determined?”
Justice Anthony Kennedy asked this question in the Q&A at SCOTUS of the 'Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius' cases. Unless Chief Justice Roberts decides that violating the mandate from HHS is a tax , it's looking good that the mandate forcing them to cover abortafacients will be overturned.

Here is a picture of the very few people that still think Obamacare is agood idea.

http://peakcare.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/head-in-the-sand.jpg

got a few of them have you?

Hello again, tom:
“What kind of a constitutional structure do we have if Congress can give an agency the power to grant or not grant a religious exemption based on what the agency determined?”

Unless Chief Justice Roberts decides that violating the mandate from HHS is a tax , it's looking good that the mandate forcing them to cover abortafacients will be overturned.Nahhhh. I read Kennedy's comments differently..

I believe he's saying that NO agency of government can grant or deny a religious exemption. It's just not within their Constitutional purview to do it. That's WHY tax books begin with the words, "Church's are exempt". They make NO effort at defining a church. That's because the First Amendment says the government cannot establish a religion. And, if the government can't tell you what a religion IS, then it can't tell you what it ISN'T either. So, it stays OUT of that bailiwick altogether. I believe it will continue to do.

Therefore, irrespective of their claim, the agency has NO Constitutional authority to grant it or even consider it.. The claim of exemption MUST be denied.

excon

Are You There God? It's Me, Hobby Lobby | Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/hobby-lobby-supreme-court-obamacare)


On many levels, the Hobby Lobby case is a mess of bad facts, political opportunism, and questionable legal theories that might be laughable had some federal courts not taken them seriously. Take for instance Hobby Lobby's argument that providing coverage for Plan B and Ella substantially limits its religious freedom. The company admits in its complaint that until it considered filing the suit in 2012, its generous health insurance plan actually covered Plan B and Ella (though not IUDs). The burden of this coverage was apparently so insignificant that God, and Hobby Lobby executives, never noticed it until the mandate became a political issue......

So all of a sudden this is an issue when it wasn't an issue before??


The fact that Hobby Lobby once covered the drugs it now objects to is "evidence that these cases are part of a broader effort to undermine the Affordable Care Act, and push new legal theories that could result in businesses being allowed to break the law and harm others under the guise of religious freedom," says Gretchen Borchelt, senior counsel and director of state reproductive health policy at the National Women's Law Center.


And then there is the real science that has been totally ignored,


The company argues that emergency contraception pills, such as Ella and Plan B, destroy fertilized eggs by interfering with implantation in the uterus. Hobby Lobby's owners consider this abortion. But the pills don't work that way (http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/13-354-BRIEF-OF-AMICI-CURIAE-PHYSICIANS-FOR-REPRODUCTIVE-HEALTH-et-al....pdf). When Plan B first came on the market in 1999, its mechanism for preventing unplanned pregnancies wasn't entirely clear. That's why the FDA-approved labeling reflected some uncertainty and said that the pills "theoretically" prevent pregnancy by interfering with implantation. Since then, though, there has been a lot of research on how these pills work, and the findings are definitive: They prevent pregnancy by blocking ovulation. In fact, they don't work once ovulation has occurred. As Corbin recently wrote in a law review article, "Every reputable scientific study to examine Plan B's mechanism has concluded that these pills prevent fertilization from occurring in the first place…In short, Plan B is contraception."


I actually hope they win, so the employees of these religious beliefs companies denied reproductive health care can sue for discrimination, and more money.

Recently, after learning about the nationally prominent HHS mandate controversy, Hobby Lobby re-examined its insurance policy to ensure they continued to be consistent with its faith. During that re-examination, Hobby Lobby discovered that the formulary for its prescription drug policy included two drugs -- Plan B and Ella -- that could cause an abortion. Coverage of these drugs was not included knowingly or deliberately by the Green family [members of which own the company via a trust]. Such coverage is out of step with the rest of Hobby Lobby's policies, which explicitly exclude abortion-causing contraceptive devices and pregnancy-termination drugs. Hobby Lobby therefore immediately excluded the inconsistent drugs from its policies. http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FA-OK-0001-0001.pdf (page 14 #55)

Hello again, tom:
Nahhhh. I read Kennedy's comments differently..

I believe he's saying that NO agency of government can grant or deny a religious exemption. It's just not within their Constitutional purview to do it. That's WHY tax books begin with the words, "Church's are exempt". They make NO effort at defining a church. That's because the First Amendment says the government cannot establish a religion. And, if the government can't tell you what a religion IS, then it can't tell you what it ISN'T either. So, it stays OUT of that bailiwick altogether. I believe it will continue to do.

Therefore, irrespective of their claim, the agency has NO Constitutional authority to grant it or even consider it.. The claim of exemption MUST be denied.

excon

nope ,he was clearly referring to the point that Congress gave HHS the power to deny religious exemptions .
Not only that ;but HHS has refined the mandate at least twice so now we have ;exemptions for churches, a bogus "accommodation" for non-profit religious organizations, and nothing at all for religous private employers like Hobby Lobby .

Here's the reality . Kennedy voted with the minority when Roberts decided at the 11th hour that no matter what ,SCOTUS had to find a way to make Obamacare constitutional . Kennedy was furious at Roberts for his reversal . Kennedy is going to be firm in favor of Hobby Lobby . The question is ;which way does Roberts go ?

http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FA-OK-0001-0001.pdf (page 14 #55)

The morning after pill is no more abortion inducing than a condom, and that's just the science behind it. That's what makes the whole argument a political strategy and power grab by corporations. Like I have been saying for a long time, denying benefit compensation opens the door to increasing financial compensation. Hobby Lobby can drop the insurance and give up the money. All the bosses can.

End of controversy, if not the hollering.

Like I have been saying for a long time, denying benefit compensation opens the door to increasing financial compensation. Hobby Lobby can drop the insurance and give up the money.

If the company was allowed to drop the insurance and increase the financial compensation, there wouldn't be a court case.

Woman got contraceptive coverage before the ACA, and this lawsuit, from Hobby Lobby for years. What changed?

Woman got contraceptive coverage before the ACA, and this lawsuit, from Hobby Lobby for years. What changed?

The requirement that Hobby Lobby provide insurance. Before the ACA, it was voluntary. The company had the option of dropping the group plan and paying higher wages.

So now they want to be exempt from the law that requires them to do what they were doing before? Gotcha. That doesn't sound like a religious belief thing to me. Kind of sudden to be believed.

Shocking that corporations aren't moving for single payer. That smells too.

It's a concept a lot of Progressives have trouble grasping. It used to be quite common in this country. It's called Liberty.

It's a concept a lot of Progressives have trouble grasping. It used to be quite common in this country. It's called Liberty.

right on !

What changed?

...already told you . When they looked over the policy that they had independently ,they found the coverage in it that they were unaware they were paying for. (see response # 840)

We want liberty also, but we also want services and good health, and a job that supports a family. The whole ACA is nothing but a regulation that controls rising costs and spread availability to more people.

Are you saying that we had more liberty when we got kicked off our health insurance when we got sick?
Or had limits imposed that ran out and left us with nothing?
Or premiums going up yet again whether you got sick or not?
Or had to get on Cobra when you were laid off for 6 months?
OR couldn't get any insurance when we were sick before, and got kicked off our insurance, you know those preexisting conditions?
OR the insurance company denied you care and treatments they didn't want to pay for?
Or keeping kicking your kids off your policy at 21?

Seems to me a big part of liberty is good health, and free checkups to prevent bad health, and early detection for better health outcomes.

I guess your idea of liberty is different than mine. 6 million people so far have agreed with 2 days left. Now if you just get those really poor people covered and don't break the bank or close hospitals.

BILOXI, Miss.: Despite health challenges, Southern states resist Medicaid expansion | Washington | McClatchy DC (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/04/11/188297/health-challenged-southern-states.html)


But Mississippi and eight other contiguous Southern states, all led by Republican governors, have decided not to implement the Medicaid expansion, even though the federal government has pledged to pay all medical costs for the newly eligible enrollees in 2014, 2015 and 2016 and no less than 90 percent of their costs thereafter.
All of them – Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and Oklahoma – say they can't afford it under those terms.
The wall of Southern opposition is one of the last major obstacles to President Barack Obama's goal of universal health coverage for all Americans. If it remains intact, nearly 5 million of the newly eligible won't have Medicaid coverage in 2022, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, a health care research group.
Besides shared borders and conservative political leadership, most of the nine states have something else in common: By a host of measures – from obesity to infant mortality – all but North Carolina and Georgia are among the unhealthiest in the nation, according to the 2012 edition of America's Health Rankings.

So tell me why they can't afford to have the FEDS pay the doctor bills for the very poor? Makes no sense to me at all.

So tell me why they can't afford to have the FEDS pay the doctor bills for the very poor? Makes no sense to me at all.

Obviously it offends someones sense of liberty, we don't know who that someone might be, but we suspect that it is a republican who doesn't want to give peopel choice to be lifted out of slavery to the medical profession and the insurers. Slavery can also be being forced to work to pay for exhorbant premiums

So tell me why they can't afford to have the FEDS pay the doctor bills for the very poor? Makes no sense to me at all.

Why does ANYBODY but the patient have to pay the Doctor? Hospitals have huge overhead, but Family Physicians?

I'll get rhetorical and post an answer for you:
One Doctor's Viral Letter Exposes the Harrowing Reality of Obamacare's 'War Against Doctors' (http://www.ijreview.com/2014/03/124716-one-doctors-viral-letter-exposes-harrowing-reality-obamacares-war-doctors/)

Despite the headline, it's been going on far longer than the current administration.

Why does ANYBODY but the patient have to pay the Doctor? Hospitals have huge overhead, but Family Physicians?

I'll get rhetorical and post an answer for you:
One Doctor’s Viral Letter Exposes the Harrowing Reality of Obamacare’s ‘War Against Doctors’ (http://www.ijreview.com/2014/03/124716-one-doctors-viral-letter-exposes-harrowing-reality-obamacares-war-doctors/)

Despite the headline, it's been going on far longer than the current administration.

it seems that once again the point of it all has been lost. why do people have insurance? because frquently the costs are more than they can pay at the time so they see having a buffer in time of need is important, and more importantly, there are people who just don't have that extra to pay a doctor. Point is why should the patient pay the doctor when better alternatives are possible? and if medical costs are high, too high, the government should act to reign in the profiteering of the participants by capping fees, pharmeutical costs, sometimes free enterprise has to be controlled.

Obviously it offends someones sense of liberty, we don't know who that someone might be, but we suspect that it is a republican who doesn't want to give peopel choice to be lifted out of slavery to the medical profession and the insurers. Slavery can also be being forced to work to pay for exhorbant premiums
You mean the enslaved people that are being extorted from their paychecks to subsidize the lazy half who contribute nothing at all?

Hello tom:

gee think about it ... a President who can change the law any time he deems it suitable. All hail emperor Barakus Obamanum !
In May of 2006, just days before the end of open enrollment, President Bush took administrative action to (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/03/26/3419068/flashback-the-bush-administration-extended-the-enrollment-period-for-medicare-part-d/)waive (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2006/05/09/13837_penalties-waived-for-low-income.html) “penalty fees (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/03/26/3419068/flashback-the-bush-administration-extended-the-enrollment-period-for-medicare-part-d/)for very low-income seniors and people with disabilities who sign up late” and allowed “the same impoverished beneficiaries to sign up for Medicare drug coverage until Dec. 31.”Do we get to hail emperor Dufissius Bushonious too?

You guys are silly.

exconious

Point is why should the patient pay the doctor when better alternatives are possible?

Every middleman has to be paid. The point of the ACA is to add MORE layers of middlemen. This raises costs, giving the lie to the title of the Act. The concept of "better alternatives" to one-on-one interaction between doctor and patient is ludicrous. The "best" alternative to the high costs of medical care would be tort reform, but getting a bunch of lawyers to limit lawyers' compensation is even more ludicrous.

Meanwhile, Concierge health services are on the rise.

Hello tom:
Do we get to hail emperor Dufissius Bushonious too?

You guys are silly.

exconious

Medicare part D wasn't a complete takeover of the medical sector. Nor was it mandated coverage .

Here is the facts behind the Bush extention...


If you missed the enrollment deadline because you were given bad information about enrolling in a Medicare Part D plan you may be able to sign up now under "Special Enrollment." Here is an example: many people called Social Security to sign up for the "Extra Help with Prescription Drug Plan Costs," only to be told they did not qualify because of their income. Many people took this to mean that they did not qualify for Medicare Part D because it was not clear that these are two separate programs. If you are in a similar situation where you were given misinformation by a Social Security or Medicare employee, your pharmacy, or one of the Medicare Part D providers, contact Medicare at their toll-free number and request Special Enrollment for Medicare Part D.

http://EzineArticles.com/216500
So those who were given faulty info about their qualifications for enrollment were given the opportunity to sign up. This had bipartisan support in Congress.

But with the emperor it's all of the delays, exceptions and waivers and executive bypassing of the law ...Not a single act of extension (to date I think it's 26 unilateral changes to the law) . It's reasonable to ask questions about these, particularly when it comes to the limits of presidential authority and the precedent it sets . Of course the Dems may argue that Medicare Part D never uninsured 5 million people upon implementation like Obamacare has . Why don't they sponsor legislation to delay or repeal this monstrous law ? Then all these acts would be constitutional.

the possibility exists that everything that could be said has been said, you know something about monkeys and typewriters and so what we have here is the classic case of the oozequetzal bird which for those who are not versed in classifical mythology flies in ever diminishing circles until it disappears up its own fundamental oriface from which lofty elevation it surveys its universe with distain

Why does ANYBODY but the patient have to pay the Doctor? Hospitals have huge overhead, but Family Physicians?

I'll get rhetorical and post an answer for you:
One Doctor's Viral Letter Exposes the Harrowing Reality of Obamacare's 'War Against Doctors' (http://www.ijreview.com/2014/03/124716-one-doctors-viral-letter-exposes-harrowing-reality-obamacares-war-doctors/)

Despite the headline, it's been going on far longer than the current administration.

The battle against rising health costs has been going on a long time, I agree. Too bad our paychecks have not gone up at the same rate. That's why we all need insurance or none of us could pay for it. Not just the premiums every month, but the actual doctor, and facilities, medicine, and care cost. If you had to pay out of pocket before you got treated, likely you would be dead. Before you are even seen the first thing they ask for is show me the money (health insurance details). You can check that for yourself any way you want to.

Let me address your article for a second. Many older doctors are against the upgrades to medical records and the costs of them, but many are not because it saves time and money in the long run and makes the whole system more efficient. Sure computers and qualified people to use them are not cheap, but unlike the doctor cited in your article, he makes it sound like he has to do all this himself and doesn't sound very literate in the technology does he? Face it Cats technology is the tool of the future and its everywhere. Your doctor is the old fashion cowboy who is trying to race across the country to beat a brand new train to the other side. Feel sorry for the horse(s).

So now tell me how YOU can afford any sickness, or injury that may befall your family during your life. Then tell me all the times your OS needs upgrading. Its really a simple concept as doctors must learn and adjust to the new tools of medicine and record keeping and care delivery and pay fors, and being computer illiterate is no longer an excuse.
Not only is the health care industry growing, and creating jobs, but slowing the rate that health care costs are rising. Jut an example, the costs of sending data from a lab to a doctor, or hospital has gone down, and the time it takes has dramatically decreased. Of course that's a good thing in the long run as some doctors grumble at having to do it.

Doubt they trade the Mercedes in for a horse however. So keep your snail mail ideas while the rest of us text and email. And if you buy your own insurance, then cost is not lost on you. Even the old doctors ask for insurance proof before they treat you.

There is always the emergency room, that we all pay for, if you don't have insurance.

Hello again, tom:
Medicare part D wasn't a complete takeover of the medical sector. Nor was it mandated coverage .I see. When you take over EVERYTHING, you can't change the law.. But, when you only take over a little of it, you can.

Like I said, you guys are silly.

excon

So now tell me how YOU can afford any sickness, or injury that may befall your family during your life.

As I said before, Concierge service is on the rise. The doctor doesn't take ANY insurance, and only sees subscribing members. Everything done in the office is paid for by the monthly subscription. Lab tests and hospital stays are negotiated through the doctor on a cash basis, usually at about 30 - 45% of billed costs.

What prevents the Dr. who only sees subscribing patients from giving less care to increase his profit or taken to the extreme, pull the plug on high cost patients? If the patient is paying 30-45%, who is absorbing the remaining cost?

As I said before, Concierge service is on the rise. The doctor doesn't take ANY insurance, and only sees subscribing members. Everything done in the office is paid for by the monthly subscription. Lab tests and hospital stays are negotiated through the doctor on a cash basis, usually at about 30 - 45% of billed costs.

Your choice of course, but I fail to see how it saves you money or eliminates the need for insurance. My own research indicates it could be quite costly. Clearly only the more well off can avail themselves of this option.

Concierge medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concierge_medicine)

Old link I know.


Other insurers do not oppose concierge medicine as long as patients are clearly informed that the fees will not be reimbursed by their health plan.

What prevents the Dr. who only sees subscribing patients from giving less care to increase his profit or taken to the extreme, pull the plug on high cost patients? If the patient is paying 30-45%, who is absorbing the remaining cost?

Depends on your private insurance policy, or you will pay if the insurance company doesn't, as an added cost not covered.

What prevents the Dr. who only sees subscribing patients from giving less care to increase his profit or taken to the extreme, pull the plug on high cost patients? If the patient is paying 30-45%, who is absorbing the remaining cost?

The insurance companies are the remaining cost. As far as less care for profits, those individuals prefer to work for the insurance companies, where care doesn't matter anyway.

Obamacare Navigators Enrolling People at Mexican Consulate

Obamacare Navigators Enrolling People at Mexican Consulate | Right Wing News (http://www.rightwingnews.com/uncategorized/obamacare-navigators-enrolling-people-at-mexican-consulate/)

HITLER FINDS OUT ABOUT HIS OBAMACARE... somethng a bit on the light hearted side.

http://safeshare.tv/w/jyeqLxShwx

7.1 million people signed up for Obamacare ..........APRIL FOOLS !!

What will the excuse be tomorrow?

According to Jonah Goldberg we have 50 million uninsured today when we only had 30 million uninsured to cover under Obamacare. So what exactly was the gain here? Math isn't this regime's specialty, all those jobs "saved or created," GM having paid back "every taxpayer dollar, " a constant adjusting down of the economic numbers every quarter, that mythical $2500 every family was going to save, the promises of keeping your insurance and doctors and every other fudged number they've given us, what exactly did we gain and why should we believe anything from this regime?

Kathleen Sebelius resigned this week . The emperor said "Heck of a job ! " .

Replacing her will be Sylvia Burwell (safe to assume she will survive confirmation since Reid changed the rules ) ,who's notable achievement was shutting down the War memorials during the government shutdown. The emperor sure knows how to pick em. I wonder if she will bring her punitive ways with her when administering Obamacare ?

Her last confirmation at OMB was 96-0. Before Reid changed the rules.

Sylvia Mathews Burwell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Mathews_Burwell)


On March 3, 2013, President Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama) nominated Burwell to head the White House Office of Management and Budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Management_and_Budget).[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Mathews_Burwell#cite_note-13) On April 24, the U.S. Senate confirmed Burwell to be the head of the OMB in a 96-0 vote.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Mathews_Burwell#cite_note-14)


9 Things You Might Not Know About HHS Nominee Sylvia Burwell - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/04/9-things-you-might-not-know-about-hhs-nominee-sylvia-burwell/?date20320705/)

yeah well the head of HHS will have some 'splainin' to do . I for one would do everything to hold up her appointment until the emperor sends detailed breakdown of the 7 million people who signed up for Obamacare on the exchanges. I am curious about how many of them did not have coverage before their policies were cancelled under the new rules. Guessing less than a million Americans are newly insured.

The only person who has been honest about Obamacare's intent has been Zeke Emanuel. The real bombshell will come when the employer mandate kicks in and according to Emanuel ,most employers will abandon health coverage by 2025.

most employers will abandon health coverage by 2025.

Setting the stage for the Progressive dream of Single Payer Control

Single Payer You mean what the rest of the industrialized world is doing?

You mean what the rest of the industrialized world is doing?

Just as Lenin instructed.

Haha, a true sign of ignorance.

well if you want ignorance it has been clearly demonstrated in this implementation

True. They'll never get it together. It'll always be a playground for the wealthy and the righties here are their lapdogs.

Yes do you think Pol Pot might have been right afterall?