A California insurance broker, who sells health plans to individuals and small businesses, told me that she’s prepping her clients for a sticker shock. Her local carriers are hinting to her that premiums may triple this fall, when the plans unveil how they’ll billet the full brunt of Obamacare’s new regulations and mandates.

California is hardly alone. Around the country, insurers are fixing to raise rates by double digits. They’re privately briefing politicians in Washington on what’s in store. Those briefings are leaving a lot of folks up and down Pennsylvania Avenue jumpy.


Health Insurance Brokers Prepare Clients For Obamacare Sticker Shock - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/01/22/health-insurance-brokers-prepare-clients-for-obamacare-sticker-shock/)


To try and get a handle on rising costs, the Obama Administration will start to go after the healthcare providers. The President seemed to hint about all this when he referenced the need to “lower the cost” of healthcare in his inaugural address.
Yeah it's the greedy provider's fault that they have to double rates to cover all the mandates in the plan.

Yeah the Obots were slick making sure all the low hanging fruit ;all the carrots like allowing your kids to stay on your plan until they are 26 ;women getting "free "contraception. But now that the elections are over ,it's time to pay the piper.
But then again... maybe that was the plan all along.. a variation of what Obama told us in 2008 about his energy plan .
Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4)
The cry will go up for the government ‘to do something’ and nationalization will be complete.

Everyone is getting sticker shock in one form or another (http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/01/confused-professors-shocked-schools-are-cutting-their-hours-to-avoid-obamacare-penalties/)...


Confused professors shocked schools are cutting their hours to avoid Obamacare penalties

Marc Thiessen | January 23, 2013, 9:46 am

Barack Obama is a former adjunct professor of constitutional law, and no group has been more solidly supportive of his liberal agenda than the professorial class. So it is a sweet irony that the latest group getting hammered by the mandates of Obamacare are … wait for it … adjunct professors.

The Wall Street Journal reports:


The federal health-care overhaul is prompting some colleges and universities to cut the hours of adjunct professors. [...] The Affordable Care Act requires large employers to offer a minimum level of health insurance to employees who work 30 hours a week or more starting in 2014, or face a penalty. The mandate is a particular challenge for colleges and universities, which increasingly rely on adjuncts to help keep costs down as states have scaled back funding for higher education.

A handful of schools, including Community College of Allegheny County in Pennsylvania and Youngstown State University in Ohio, have curbed the number of classes that adjuncts can teach in the current spring semester to limit the schools’ exposure to the health-insurance requirement.

The professors are understandably confused. Robert Balla, an adjunct professor of English at Stark State College, in North Canton, Ohio received a letter in which he was told that “in order to avoid penalties under the Affordable Care Act…employees with part-time or adjunct status will not be assigned more than an average of 29 hours per week.” He told the Journal that the move cut his $40,000 salary by about $2,000 and that he cannot afford health insurance.

“I think it goes against the spirit of the [health-care] law,” Mr. Balla said. “In education, we’re working for the public good, we are public employees at a public institution; we should be the first ones to uphold the law, to set the example.”

A spokeswoman for Stark State explained the realities of the market. The new rules were necessary “to maintain the fiscal stability of the college. There are a lot of penalties involved if adjuncts go over their 29 hours-per-week average. The college can be fined and the fines are substantial.”

Really? Substantial penalties? You don’t say.

You can just imagine the outraged conversations in the faculty lounge now: “We’re professors. I thought stuff like this only happened to manual laborers at Wendy’s and Taco Bell!”

Looks like the academy is finally getting a lesson in the costs of big government liberalism.

It goes against the spirit of the law. Ba ha ha ha! Guess you should have known what was in it before promoting it.

I thought you guys have always been saying its okay for businesses to make profits? Be it colleges or insurance companies. Don't blame government ,because the ACA hasn't been implemented yet, blame the businesses for the way they prepare for it, and charge you now because they may not be able to later.

Don't blame government ,because the ACA hasn't been implemented yet
The businesses are responding to what they know the mandates will cost. The costs are exploding because of government intervention in the market ;which was the plan all along.

Without government intervention, they would be raising costs regardless, and kicking people off when they need it. Of course they tell YOU they are incurring more costs, but what they don't tellyou is they set the costs in the first place.

We aren't talking cost, the consumer always pays those, we are talking PROFITS that go to the boards, and CEO's.

You're a capitalist and a free marketer, you already know this.

You want them to work for free ? I bet you do .

No not for free but not for unlimited profits though, unless I get paid an unlimited salary. The business model is broken, how many times do I have to say that and the cost to all of us is to damn high.

By your posting here at least stop lying to us and calling capitalists, and for profit businesses "job creators" as that's not their true purpose, goal, or intention. Making money whether citizens do or not, is the whole basis of the free market.

Is that why you accept layoffs slow downs, as normal cost of doing business?

unlimited profits


The health-care sector is absurdly profitable. According to this data at Yahoo Finance, the sector-wide profit margin is 21.5 percent. But the insurance industry is one of its least-profitable parts: Its profit margin is at 4.54 percent. Hospitals are also a bit strapped, with an average margin of 3.5 percent.
Ezra Klein - Health-insurance industry: Still not that profitable (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/02/health-insurance_industry_stil.html)

Profits are only evil when they aren't being redirected to promote a liberal agenda.

Barack Obama’s new ‘grass-roots’ group isn't quite
(http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/barack-obamas-new-grassroots-group-tied-to-big-liberal-donors-corporations-86708.html)

Under the law validated by the Supreme Court, its okay to have corporate donors for grassroots activity, you guys do it so will we. Sometimes you have to adjust your attitudes to reality.

What wrong with that? You guys should try reality yourselves sometimes.

Hello again,


Her local carriers are hinting to her that premiums may triple this fall,Like your stance on immigration is going to elect Hillary Clinton, the insurance companies stance on rates is going to INSURE a government takeover.

No, what you saw, WASN'T a government takeover... If it was, the insurance companies wouldn't be able to make WAR on us... But, they are, and it's going to be their death knell.

Excon

Maybe insurance companies should squeeze big pharma, and not consumers.

Maybe insurance companies should squeeze big pharma, and not consumers.
And hospitals -- a new one near me built a large outdoor (Chicago! ) "healing garden" where patients can walk and find serenity. How many patients can and will do that during their stay? The patient rooms are private only and are huge, better than a fine hotel. Each room is between parallel hallways and has two doors, one for staff access (one hallway) and one for visitor access (the other hallway).

Effort To Curb Medicare Spending Begins With Crackdown On Hospital Readmissions - Kaiser Health News (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2012/November/27/medicare-spending-hospital-readmissions.aspx)


Dr. Krumholz said hospitals should think of readmissions as a challenge to overcome. "One day, we'll look back," he said, "and we'll be incredulous that one out of every five patients ended up back in the hospital."

Crack down on corrupt medical billing soon: Government | TheMedGuru (http://www.themedguru.com/20120925/newsfeature/crack-down-corrupt-medical-billing-soon-government-86146977.html)

Government to crack down on 'hidden' waiting lists - Channel 4 News (http://www.channel4.com/news/government-to-crackdown-on-hidden-waiting-lists)

Thanks for guiding us to the facts WG.

Thanks for guiding us to the facts WG.
The planners of new hospitals around here seem to be knocking themselves out in an effort to spend money for amenities that have nothing to do with a patient's care and improvement.

Oh, and this particular new hospital with the two-hallway system is now merging with another area hospital because they are losing money. "Under the agreement, Edward Hospital, which operates a 309-bed hospital in Naperville, and a stand-alone emergency room in Plainfield, will assume control of the financially strapped 259-bed Elmhurst Memorial, which lost $14.7 million in its 2011 fiscal year after struggling to pay for its $450 million new hospital building that opened in 2011."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-01-22/business/chi-edward-elmhurst-hospitals-to-announce-merger-20130122_1_ascension-health-alexian-brothers-health-system-elmhurst-memorial-healthcare

Any comments on George Will's latest take on where Obamacare is headed?
George Will: Health care act’s death star? - Hannibal, MO - Hannibal Courier - Post - Hannibal, MO (http://www.hannibal.net/article/20130125/NEWS/130129539/-1/news)

I have been a supporter of Obamacare because I know that something has to be done, and I mostly saw just the low hanging fruit, even though I don't really get any of the fruit in my circumstances.
But it is getting hard to ignore the opinions of some of the experts. A brand new hospital in my hometown (100 miles from where I live now) is on the ropes. They are trying to work together with two other hospitals in the very general area (75 to 100 miles away) to try and survive.
Not only did they have to pass it to know what was in it, it appears that they are still trying to figure out what is in it, at this late date.
If George Will is correct, we may have seen nothing yet.

Wills argument is about costs not people who NEED health care, and NOT about people who don't have it because of the costs already. I think the implementation is key, and that's not until 2014.

I think if insurance companies, doctors, hospital get together on those costs, and include good outcomes for consumers this obstacle can be overcome. For sure consumers don't set the costs, they can only pay.

They sure don't want universal health care, like every other nation, then they can no longer control costs to YOU, from them. Mr.Will makes no reference to the concerns of people just the cost of doing business. He is saying leave business alone to do what they have been doing, because it works for them, and passes ever rising costs on to YOU!

That's just MY opinion though.

Consolidation of services does not necessarily result in lower costs . What it definitely results in is fewer choices in available services ,and probably scarcity; which of course raises prices.
I see nothing about a healing garden in WG's link. I assume it's the privates funded Lurie Children's Hospital . Although the garden appears to be a resume enhancer for the architect ,the criticism that it is not accessible to the patients is not accurate. Since Lurie relies on philanthropic funding ,why would it be a concern if they added a healing garden ? That doesn't cost the public a dime.

Untrue as consolidation means lower administration cost and duplication of services and costs. It also reduces delivery cost, whether that means manpower, or meeting demand.

Demand is what sets prices. One thing we have seen nation wide is hospitals buying the services of individual medical practices as satellites and restructuring the cost of building maintenance, salaries and equipment, and charging patients a fee. Its these hidden fees that create extra revenue streams that crushes the consumer with rising costs.

Cost shifting has been an accepted practice of the free market. Accepted by money makers but consumer, I don't think so.

Healing gardens, etc. at my hospital --

"The hospital is working with the organization Planetree, which assists medical institutions to develop and implement patient-centered care in healing environments, a type of feng shui for healing, which may include displaying art or having waterfalls in the building.

The hospital – which has several trickling waterfalls – also features 14 different outdoor gardens and has a one-mile outdoor walking path on the 50-acre campus."

New hospital features gardens, shopping, fountains — Elmhurst news, photos and events — TribLocal.com (http://triblocal.com/elmhurst/2011/06/16/new-hospital-features-gardens-retail-center-fountains/)

Sounds expensive and just wonder who pays for it and how does it affect costs of services? Appears you may need a cadillac plan to even get in the door.

At the old hospital five years ago, my husband had two stents put into his heart for <$82,000 (doctors and hospital). We wonder what a similar surgery would cost at the new hospital. Patients are choosing to be admitted to other hospitals in the area... Our Medicare Advantage plan has dropped them from its list.

Hmm, welcome to Obamcare... (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-cheapest-obamacare-plan-will-be-20000-family)


IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family

CNSNews.com) – In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under Obamacare the cheapest health insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for the year.

Under Obamacare, Americans will be required to buy health insurance or pay a penalty to the IRS.

The IRS's assumption that the cheapest plan for a family will cost $20,000 per year is found in examples the IRS gives to help people understand how to calculate the penalty they will need to pay the government if they do not buy a mandated health plan.

The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.

“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.

Bronze will be the lowest tier health-insurance plan available under Obamacare--after Silver, Gold, and Platinum. Under the law, the penalty for not buying health insurance is supposed to be capped at either the annual average Bronze premium, 2.5 percent of taxable income, or $2,085.00 per family in 2016.

So, fork over the $20 grand or fork over your penalty for living.

Doesn't apply to most of us.


Using the conditions laid out in the regulations, the IRS calculates that a family earning $120,000 per year that did not buy insurance would need to pay a "penalty" (a word the IRS still uses despite the Supreme Court ruling that it is in fact a "tax") of $2,400 in 2016.

For those wondering how clear the IRS's clarifications of this new "penalty" rule are, here is one of the actual examples the IRS gives:

“Example 3. Family without minimum essential coverage.

"(i) In 2016, Taxpayers H and J are married and file a joint return. H and J have three children: K, age 21, L, age 15, and M, age 10. No member of the family has minimum essential coverage for any month in 2016. H and J's household income is $120,000. H and J's applicable filing threshold is $24,000. The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000.

"(ii) For each month in 2016, under paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)(iii) of this section, the applicable dollar amount is $2,780 (($695 x 3 adults) + (($695/2) x 2 children)). Under paragraph (b)(2)(I) of this section, the flat dollar amount is $2,085 (the lesser of $2,780 and $2,085 ($695 x 3)). Under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the excess income amount is $2,400 (($120,000 - $24,000) x 0.025). Therefore, under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the monthly penalty amount is $200 (the greater of $173.75 ($2,085/12) or $200 ($2,400/12)).

"(iii) The sum of the monthly penalty amounts is $2,400 ($200 x 12). The sum of the monthly national average bronze plan premiums is $20,000 ($20,000/12 x 12). Therefore, under paragraph (a) of this section, the shared responsibility payment imposed on H and J for 2016 is $2,400 (the lesser of $2,400 or $20,000).”

Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)

National Median $44,389 50.00%

My advice is buy your insurance and get the subsidies and tax write offs.

Doesn't apply to most of us.



Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)

National Median $44,389 50.00%

My advice is buy your insurance and get the subsidies and tax write offs.

That it applies to anyone is an outrage.

So much for preaching personal responsibility.

NYTimes today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/us/obama-shift-on-contraception-splits-catholics.html?_r=0

Insurance companies will cover costs of contraceptives and there really is no added cost for anybody, so says CNN.
Really? Miracles still do happen.

Doesn't apply to most of us.



Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)

National Median $44,389 50.00%

My advice is buy your insurance and get the subsidies and tax write offs.

Im sure you might like the coverage that you currently enjoy right? How much do you think it is going to cost you now?


Here is a look. Im sure you can afford it like everyone else.

What do the coverage levels mean?

The difference among these coverage tiers rests with their "actuarial" value -- in other words, how much a plan will cover before the patient must chip in for co-insurance, deductibles and co-payments.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the actuarial values for the four levels of coverage are:
•Bronze: 60 percent.
•Silver: 70 percent.
•Gold: 80 percent.
•Platinum: 90 percent.


Bronze, silver, gold or platinum? Understanding the new coverage levels under health care reform (http://www.netquote.com/health-insurance/news/coverage-levels-under-health-care-reform.aspx)

So much for preaching personal responsibility.

LOL, you take the cake. The government imposing it's will on you for the right to breathe removes personal responsibility from the equation. So much for CHOICE and LIBERTY is more accurate.

If you are already covered, no need to drop it. And those premium costs are not final.

If you are already covered, no need to drop it. And those premium costs are not final.

And by then I'm betting the bronze plan will be even more expensive. A lot of small business owners can't afford coverage but will be forced to buy coverage or be fined to breathe. But no, government isn't threatening our rights or anything...

Doesn't apply to most of us.



Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States)

National Median $44,389 50.00%

My advice is buy your insurance and get the subsidies and tax write offs.

Umm maybe in Texas... round here we would not call a 2 income family making $44 as unusual or particularly rich (many of us are putting in the OT for that income level ;so it is resentful that we are considered some kind of elitists ). Now those of us who still have employers who are willing to take on the bulk of the costs are fortunate ;even though I was informed my share of the deal increases this year ( and thanks to Obamacare ,my contribution now gets a line item on my payroll report to the IRS... setting up it being a taxable benefit in the future) . But many employers ,as has been documented here more than once ,are making hard choices regarding staffing based on Obamacare .You can deny it all you want to ;but it is having a major impact on hiring .

A lot of small business owners can't afford coverage but will be forced to buy coverage or be fined to breathe.
No, that isn't what will happen. That's not how it works.

No, that isn't what what will happen. That's not how it works.

So long as they don't make the business decision to limit the number of employees they hire . Many are on that 50 employee threshold now ,and Obamacare is the determining factor .

CRY CRY CRY, what's the alternative?

CRY CRY CRY, whats the alternative?

That's all you can say about that business owner, employer, family that's being punished for existing is cry, cry, cry?

I asked what's the alternative. Obamacare hasn't started and you say it won't work and its wrong. But clearly you ignore the huge, and expensive flaws in the present system. So stop hollering and crying and express solutions like I asked for.

You sound like you love the system as it is while sucking money out of your pocket. Just say so.

So of course the Dem solution was to put it's ills on steroids and hasten the demise of the US health care system. Unless you think doubling and tripling of household expenses was the right prescription.

Yeah let the insurance companie quadruple the expenses over a shorter time, and less people. That's a great solution.

Medical Company Blames 'Obamacare' For Layoffs Of Nearly 100 People « CBS DC (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/02/01/medical-company-blames-obamacare-for-layoffs-of-nearly-100-people/)

More layoffs due to Obamacare . Yeah I know.. it was the greedy company's fault

Smith & Nephew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Nephew)


In September 2007 Biomet Inc. DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. (part of Johnson & Johnson), Smith & Nephew PLC and Zimmer Holdings Inc. entered into settlement agreements, under which they agree to pay $300 million in total, adopt industry overhauls and undertake corporate monitoring to avoid criminal charges of conspiracy.[10]


In February 2012, Smith & Nephew plc agreed to pay US$22.2 million to settle multiple US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) offenses committed by its US and German subsidiaries.[11] The company admitted to having bribed government-employed doctors in Greece to use its medical equipment over the past decade.[12] The company has entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and has agreed to retain a compliance monitor for 18 months.[13]

http://www.smith-nephew.com/about-us/at-a-glance/


We have almost 11,000 employees and a presence in more than 90 countries.

Annual sales in 2011 were nearly $4.3 billion.

I have my doubts about this being about paying taxes in America. Looks like a business down cycle. Running lean as you say, or reacting to its out of court settlements. Getting rid of redundant employees given the global scope of the company, and genrous compensation and job support doesn't sound like ordinay workers but corporate types.

I am at least sceptical seeing as they can be rather dubious about the way they have done buinessin the past.

Yeah keep being a skeptic as one company after the other reduces staffing and blames it on Obamacare . They are all a bunch of greedy criminals after all.

Come on Tom, businesses especially BIG business have used laying off parts of its work force due to changing business climate for YEARS, decades even, and you have advocated its legitimacy many times. I have been through this business cycle many times during my working years and am sure so have YOU.

So when you claim they do it now for Obamacare, should we at least look at those companies before we jump on that band wagon? The company you cited has been buying other companies for years, so of course there is redundancy and they cut it.

While you decry the causes, you fail to mention the offsets and tax breaks such companies get to lower their tax burden to very little or nothing. Like you say they do whatever they do to feed the profits. This is no different than business as usual.

Wonder what their generous severance package entails? I wonder if the parachute is gold, silver, or bronze? Most telling you didn't cry before when we had massive layoffs, so why cry now?

Hello again, tom:


yeah keep being a skeptic as one company after the other reduces staffing and blames it on Obamacare . They are all a bunch of greedy criminals after all.Count me as a skeptic. You right wingers have NEVER said ANYTHING truthful about Obamacare, so I don't know WHY you'd start now...

Nahhh, they're not greedy CRIMINALS, after all.. But, they ARE GREEDY bastards. Being a capitalist myself, I don't usually have a problem with GREED, but guys like Pappa John make Gordon Gekko look like a saint. Didn't HE lay off workers and blame it on Obamacare, REFUSING instead, to raise the price of his pizza's 11 CENTS?? Yup, he DID! Doesn't he live in a palatial zillion $$ mansion? He DOES!

Are there other GREEDY SOB's like him?? Uhhhh, YES!

Excon

Hello again, tom:


oh I expect the cost of that pizza would have to go up much higher than 11 cents to cover a national chain's employes.
Papa John’s CEO John Schnatter said (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/papa-johns-obamacare-john-schnatter_n_2104202.html) he plans on passing the costs of health care reform to his business onto his workers. Schnatter said he will likely reduce workers’ hours, as a result of President Obama's reelection, the Naples Daily News reports. Schnatter made headlines over the summer when he told shareholders that the cost of a Papa John’s pizza will increase by between 11 and 14 cents due to Obamacare.

"I got in a bunch of trouble for this," he said, referring to the comments he made in August, according to Naples News. "That's what you do, is you pass on costs. Unfortunately, I don't think people know what they're going to pay for this."

Schnatter went on to say he's neither in support of, nor against the Affordable Care Act, even admitting that "the good news is 100 percent of the population is going to have health insurance.” But he’s not the only one in the chain restaurant industry to admit that workers hours may be reduced, since Obamacare mandates that only employees that work more than 30 hours per week are covered under their employers health insurance plan. For example, Darden restaurants, the parent company of Olive Garden and Red Lobster, has already experimented with reducing workers hours in anticipation of the legislation.

Others have responded to the added costs of Obamacare more harshly, including Applebee's franchisee owner Zane Tankel who said his company won’t hire new workers because of the law. Just this week, a Georgia business owner also claimed he cut employees due to Obamacare and in fact had specifically laid off those who he thought had voted for President Obama.

Excon

Back in my day we used to call such people reactionaries.

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


A reactionary is an individual that holds political viewpoints which cause them to seek to return to a previous state (the status quo ante) in a society.


The French Revolution gave the English language three politically descriptive words denoting anti-progressive politics: reactionary, conservative and right. Reactionary derives from the French word réactionnaire (an early nineteenth-century coinage), and conservative from conservateur, identifying monarchist parliamentarians opposed to the revolution.[4] In this French usage, reactionary denotes "a movement towards the reversal of an existing tendency or state" and a "return to a previous condition of affairs."

My point in all of this is that what we have is the second coming of Enlightrnment, and you guys are on the wrong side of it. Now get off that freaking sack of loot you stole from the people.

Hello again, tom:

Count me as a skeptic. You right wingers have NEVER said ANYTHING truthful about Obamacare, so I dunno WHY you'd start now...

Now that's a flat out lie.

Catholic bishops are not impressed (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340112/catholic-bishops-latest-hhs-abortion-drugcontraceptionsterilization-mandate-reg-propos) with mandate 3.0.


For almost a century, the Catholic bishops of the United States have worked hard to support the right of every person to affordable, accessible, comprehensive, life-affirming healthcare. As we continue to do so, our changeless values remain the same. We promote the protection of the dignity of all human life and the innate rights that flow from it, including the right to life from conception to natural death; care for the poorest among us and the undocumented; the right of the Church to define itself, its ministries, and its ministers; and freedom of conscience.

Last Friday, the Administration issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the HHS mandate that requires coverage for sterilization and contraception, including drugs that may cause abortions. The Administration indicates that it has heard some previously expressed concerns and that it is open to dialogue. With release of the NPRM, the Administration seeks to offer a response to serious matters which have been raised throughout the past year. We look forward to engaging with the Administration, and all branches and levels of government, to continue to address serious issues that remain. Our efforts will require additional, careful study. Only in this way can we best assure that healthcare for every woman, man and child is achieved without harm to our first, most cherished freedom.

In evaluating Friday’s action regarding the HHS mandate, our reference remains the statement of our Administrative Committee made last March, United for Religious Freedom, and affirmed by the entire body of bishops in June 2012.

In that statement, we first expressed concern over the mandate’s “exceedingly narrow” four-part definition of “religious employer,” one that exempted our houses of worship, but left “our great ministries of service to our neighbors, namely, the poor, the homeless, the sick, the students in our schools and universities, and others in need” subject to the mandate. This created “a ‘second class’ of citizenship within our religious community,” “weakening [federal law’s] healthy tradition of generous respect for religious freedom and diversity.” And the exemption effectuated this distinction by requiring “among other things, [that employers] must hire and serve primarily those of their own faith.”

On Friday, the Administration proposed to drop the first three parts of the four-part test. This might address the last of the concerns above, but it seems not to address the rest. The Administration’s proposal maintains its inaccurate distinction among religious ministries. It appears to offer second-class status to our first-class institutions in Catholic health care, Catholic education, and Catholic charities. HHS offers what it calls an “accommodation,” rather than accepting the fact that these ministries are integral to our Church and worthy of the same exemption as our Catholic churches. And finally, it seems to take away something that we had previously—the ability of an exempt employer (such as a diocese) to extend its coverage to the employees of a ministry outside the exemption.

Second, United for Religious Freedom explained that the religious ministries not deemed “religious employers” would suffer the severe consequence of “be[ing] forced by government to violate their own teachings within their very own institutions.” After Friday, it appears that the government would require all employees in our “accommodated” ministries to have the illicit coverage—they may not opt out, nor even opt out for their children—under a separate policy. In part because of gaps in the proposed regulations, it is still unclear how directly these separate policies would be funded by objecting ministries, and what precise role those ministries would have in arranging for these separate policies. Thus, there remains the possibility that ministries may yet be forced to fund and facilitate such morally illicit activities. Here, too, we will continue to analyze the proposal and to advocate for changes to the final rule that reflect these concerns.

Third, the bishops explained that the “HHS mandate creates still a third class, those with no conscience protection at all: individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values.” This includes employers sponsoring and subsidizing the coverage, insurers writing it, and beneficiaries paying individual premiums for it. Friday’s action confirms that HHS has no intention to provide any exemption or accommodation at all to this “third class.” In obedience to our Judeo-Christian heritage, we have consistently taught our people to live their lives during the week to reflect the same beliefs that they proclaim on the Sabbath. We cannot now abandon them to be forced to violate their morally well-informed consciences.

Because the stakes are so high, we will not cease from our effort to assure that healthcare for all does not mean freedom for few. Throughout the past year, we have been assured by the Administration that we will not have to refer, pay for, or negotiate for the mandated coverage. We remain eager for the Administration to fulfill that pledge and to find acceptable solutions—we will affirm any genuine progress that is made, and we will redouble our efforts to overcome obstacles or setbacks. Thus, we welcome and will take seriously the Administration’s invitation to submit our concerns through formal comments, and we will do so in the hope that an acceptable solution can be found that respects the consciences of all. At the same time, we will continue to stand united with brother bishops, religious institutions, and individual citizens who seek redress in the courts for as long as this is necessary.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York

February 7, 2013


The mandate basically redefines the church, which is exactly what's been done by those of you insisting church ministries should be treated as a business, and I believe this is all intentional. Come on admit it libs, you don't want the church to live its faith and serve people, that's the government's job, right?

Hello again, Steve:


Come on admit it libs, you don't want the church to live its faith and serve people,Would this be the SAME Catholic church that aided and abetted their priests in raping and molesting children the world over, and who then covered it up for DECADES, and is STILL covering it up?

THAT Catholic church?? We need to send drones to the Vatican.

Excon

All due respect to the catholic church, but I find it expands the whole range of religious non profit organizations and allows contraceptive coverage to those that want it as a separate policy that the churches DOES NOT pay for.

Interesting Stuff I Found While Reading the New HHS Mandate Rules (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/yimcatholic/2013/02/interesting-stuff-i-found-while-reading-the-new-hhs-mandate-rules.html)


The Departments propose two key changes to the preventive services coverage rules codified in 26 CFR 54.9815-2713T, 29 CFR 2590.715-2713, and 45 CFR 147.130 to meet these goals. First, the proposed rules would amend the criteria for the religious employer exemption to ensure that an otherwise exempt employer plan is not disqualified because the employer's purposes extend beyond the inculcation of religious values or because the employer serves or hires people of different religious faiths. Second, the proposed rules would establish accommodations for health coverage established or maintained by eligible organizations, or arranged by eligible organizations that are religious institutions of higher education, with religious objections to contraceptive coverage.

This proposed definition of eligible organization is intended to allow health coverage established or maintained or arranged by nonprofit religious organizations, including nonprofit religious institutional health care providers, educational institutions, and charities, with religious objections to contraceptive coverage to qualify for an accommodation. For this purpose, an organization that is organized and operated as a nonprofit entity is not limited to any particular form of entity under state law, but may include organizations such as trusts and unincorporated associations, as well as nonprofit, not-for-profit, non-stock, public benefit, and similar types of corporations. However, for this purpose an organization is not considered to be organized and operated as a nonprofit entity if its assets or income accrue to the benefit of private individuals or shareholders.

I see no class distinction in the church entities and cannot see what's wrong with a church employee essentially having a supplemental policy in addition to the church insurance. Its paid for by credits for the insurer of such policies, not the church so what's the real problem if its separate from the church?

The White House's contraceptives compromise (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/01/the-white-houses-contraceptives-compromise/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein)

If the IRS can define a church why can't we use that since its been used for many decades now.

http://krestaintheafternoon.blogspot.com/2013/02/bill-donohue-new-hhs-rules-welcomed.html


While many aspects of the new proposal need to be examined before a final conclusion can be rendered, the decision to expand religious exemptions, and to adopt the IRS definition of a religious institution, is a sign of goodwill by the Obama administration toward the Catholic community.

Hello again, Steve:

Would this be the SAME Catholic church that aided and abetted their priests in raping and molesting children the world over, and who then covered it up for DECADES, and is STILL covering it up??

THAT Catholic church??? We need to send drones to the Vatican.

excon

THAT Catholic church that educates kids, feeds the hungry, shelters the homeless, heals the sick.

All due respect to the catholic church, but I find it expands the whole range of religious non profit organizations and allows contraceptive coverage to those that want it as a separate policy that the churches DOES NOT pay for.

Interesting Stuff I Found While Reading the New HHS Mandate Rules (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/yimcatholic/2013/02/interesting-stuff-i-found-while-reading-the-new-hhs-mandate-rules.html)



I see no class distinction in the church entities and cannot see what's wrong with a church employee essentially having a supplemental policy in addition to the church insurance. Its paid for by credits for the insurer of such policies, not the church so what's the real problem if its separate from the church?

The White House’s contraceptives compromise (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/01/the-white-houses-contraceptives-compromise/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein)

All interesting twists on the truth. We weren't born yesterday, no amount of spin is going to change the facts.


If the IRS can define a church why can't we use that since its been used for many decades now.

Kresta In The Afternoon: Bill Donohue: New HHS Rules Welcomed (http://krestaintheafternoon.blogspot.com/2013/02/bill-donohue-new-hhs-rules-welcomed.html)

Perhaps Bill should speak with the bishops.

Hello again, Steve:


THAT Catholic church that educates kids,Would you put YOUR kid into their clutches?? Of course, you wouldn't. You KNOW, like I KNOW, they haven't cleaned up their mess... Your local priest might be a MONSTER.

If it were me, I'd REVOKE their tax exempt status. They're a CRIMINAL organization.. RICO would be TOO good for them.

Excon

THAT Catholic church that educates kids, feeds the hungry, shelters the homeless, heals the sick.The one that has ruined the lives of countless children... and they tried to cover it up. A sick organization.

Hello again, Steve:

Would you put YOUR kid into their clutches??? Of course, you wouldn't. You KNOW, like I KNOW, they haven't cleaned up their mess... Your local priest might be a MONSTER.

If it were me, I'd REVOKE their tax exempt status. They're a CRIMINAL organization.. RICO would be TOO good for them.

excon

I attended a Catholic school for a while actually and I see you've just abandoned first amendment deflections for downright attacks. You're just distracting again though, the priest scandal is irrelevant to the issue - our rights are at stake, Catholic or not.


The one that has ruined the lives of countless children...and they tried to cover it up. A sick organization.

Like I said, that's irrelevant to the issue. But this is what happens when you run out of defenses for taking away MY rights.

Hello again, Steve:

Are you talking about THIS Bill Donohue? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKLlxAgMO-w) The one who explains why victims of child abuse are a bunch of greedy, bigoted whiners?? He's an ENABLER. He should be LOCKED up!

excon

Like I said, that's irrelevant to the issue. But this is what happens when you run out of defenses for taking away MY rights.You know it's the same argument you use with Planned Parenthood.

Hello again, Steve:


I see you've just abandoned first amendment deflections for downright attacks. Yeah, I'm pretty transparent, aren't I?

Look, BEFORE I saw the movie Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mea_Maxima_Culpa:_Silence_in_the_House_of_God), I was WILLING to treat the church like an honest broker seeking a finding that was consistent with their faith..

Having SEEN the movie, I see NOW that the COVERUP of child molestation, perpetrated on the world by the church, was ORCHESTRATED by the guy who is NOW Pope. The Catholic church is a CRIMINAL organization. Criminal organizations AREN'T entitled to 1st Amendment rights. I'm no longer going to treat them as I did before...

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

Are you talking about THIS Bill Donohue? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKLlxAgMO-w) The one who explains why victims of child abuse are a bunch of greedy, bigoted whiners??? He's an ENABLER. He should be LOCKED up!

excon

Talk to Tal, he's the one using Donohue to defend the 'compromise.'

Hello again, Steve:

Yeah, I'm pretty transparent, aren't I?

Look, BEFORE I saw the movie Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mea_Maxima_Culpa:_Silence_in_the_House_of_God), I was WILLING to treat the church like an honest broker seeking a finding that was consistent with their faith..

Having SEEN the movie, I see NOW that the COVERUP of child molestation, perpetrated on the world by the church, was ORCHESTRATED by the guy who is NOW Pope. The Catholic church is a CRIMINAL organization. Criminal organizations AREN'T entitled to 1st Amendment rights. I'm no longer going to treat them as I did before...

excon

So you're willing to forsake the first amendment because of a movie? That's kind of ironic and weird.

Hello again, Steve:


So you're willing to forsake the first amendment because of a movie? That's kind of ironic and weird.Uhhh, not if the movie is telling the truth, and I BELIEVE every word. It would be weird NOT to react to what they did.

Excon

Just trying to present some facts and opinions that are outside the opinion of YOU, and the church. Despite the lawsuits, other churches, religions and businesses are on board with not only the accommodations put forth so far, but the level of effort, and commitment by this president.

So the process continues.

I believe his level of commitment to 'compromise' is driven by the court issuing a mandate of their own, and seeing as how the latest version is just another shell game. On to other features of Obamacare, the 'family penalty.'

HHS 'family penalty' rule passes buck (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/penalty-call-puts-ball-in-employers-court-87342.html)

You are so pessimistic, so not condusive to making adjustments as you go. Makes a tough journey even tougher.

" On to other features of Obamacare, the 'family penalty. "

Sounds like Nancy was wrong when she said we had to pass it to find out what was in it. Looks more like having to operate under it for a year or so before all the ramifications are discovered. Maybe the real plan is to get things so screwed up that single payer will have to be implemented as an emergency measure.

There's no maybe about it. That's the plan.

You are so pessimistic, so not condusive to making adjustments as you go. Makes a tough journey even tougher.

Dude, I don't like passing laws to find out what's in them and that was Politico reporting, not Freerepublic.

And Paul Krugman who made a speech and said that to pay for the society the left envisions that we need middle class sales taxes and "death panels "(his words ;not Palin's)

Combine the reference from Politico that speech posted with the comments by George Will linked in my earlier post (#16) and here are a few excerpts from that post:

"A willow, not an oak. So said conservatives of Chief Justice John Roberts when he rescued the Affordable Care Act -- aka Obamacare -- from being found unconstitutional. But the manner in which he did this may have made the ACA unworkable, thereby putting it on a path to ultimate extinction.
This plausible judgment comes from professor Thomas A. Lambert of the University of Missouri Law School, writing in Regulation quarterly, a publication of the libertarian Cato Institute. The crucial decision, he says, was four liberal justices joining Roberts' opinion declaring that the ACA's penalty for not complying with the mandate to purchase health insurance is actually a tax on not purchasing it. With this reasoning, the court severely limited the ability of the new health care regime to cope with its own predictable consequences."
(One paragraph not quoted)

"This did not, however, doom the ACA because Roberts invoked what Lambert calls “a longstanding interpretive canon that calls for the court, if possible, to interpret statutes in a way that preserves their constitutionality.” Roberts did this by ruling that what Congress called a “penalty” for not obeying the mandate was really a tax on noncompliance. This must, Lambert thinks, have momentous -- and deleterious -- implications for the functioning of the ACA. The problems arise from the interplay of two ACA provisions -- “guaranteed issue” and “community rating."
3 paragraphs not quoted

"So, Lambert says, the ACA's penalties are too low to prod the healthy to purchase insurance, even given ACA's subsidies for purchasers. The ACA's authors probably understood this perverse incentive and assumed that once Congress passed the ACA with penalties low enough to be politically palatable, Congress could increase them.
But Roberts' decision limits Congress' latitude by holding that the small size of the penalty is part of the reason it is, for constitutional purposes, a tax. It is not a “financial punishment” because it is not so steep that it effectively prohibits the choice of paying it. And, Roberts noted, “by statute, it can never be more.” As Lambert says, the penalty for refusing to purchase insurance counts as a tax only if it remains so small as to be largely ineffective.
Unable to increase penalties substantially, Congress, in the context of “guaranteed issue” and “community rating,” has only one way to induce healthy people to purchase insurance. This is by the hugely expensive process of increasing premium subsidies enough to make negligible the difference between the cost of insurance to purchasers and the penalty for not purchasing. Republicans will ferociously resist exacerbating the nation's financial crisis in order to rescue the ACA.
Because the penalties are “constitutionally” limited by the reasoning whereby Roberts declared them taxes, he may have saved the ACA's constitutionality by sacrificing its feasibility. So as the president begins his second term, the signature achievement of his first term looks remarkably rickety. "
(end of article)

The potential situation discussed in the Politico article affecting family coverage will have to be addressed and may be the straw that breaks the camel's back as discussed in the Will comments.

Hello again,

Yeah, it needs to be tweaked... Medicare for all would work, and we could write the law on ONE page..

The truth is, I'd RATHER have the free market system, as it was designed to be... But, when the market starts SCREWING the people, it's time for government intervention.

Not only would Medicare for all SOLVE the Obamacare 2.0 problem, but it would save us BILLIONS and BILLIONS of $$$'s.

And THAT, my friends, would SAVE the country.

excon

Medicare pays out only pennies on the dollar compared to private insurers ,and yet Medicare hemorrhages taxpayer's dollars .For the calendar year 2011, the Medicare receipts were $306.7 billion, while the expenditures were $549.1 billion, a loss of $242.4 billion. That's with the baby boomers only now getting into retirement and Medicare eligibility . The system now has 3 workers for every retiree receiving benefits ;but that ratio is rapidly decreasing .
Unless we reign in Medicare expenses, the amount of money that we spend on on the entitlement will continue to grow as a percent of the economy and as percent of government spending .And that's before you would make it universal.

Don't worry Tom the nanny state is here to stay. Cwrongress has no intention of decreasing any expenditure, so you can only hope those job creators will start spending soon

Its like anything else we have ever done. We start building and see what it looks like when we finish it. Ugly as building this nation was, we are still building. Heck they tweak social security and medicare every few years too.

The wingers cry about that too, so why are we surprised they cry now? Don't let the gloom and doom crowd fool you though, they will take the benefits like everyone else. I mean they think the sky is falling on sunny days too.

They holler about what won't work, offer no real alternative that will, just tear it down. Then years later they still think its not working but has anyone seen a TParty type stick to their principles and refuse those social security checks, or NOT sign up for Medicare?

Yet still they cry about getting the government out of their lives. Except when there is money or benefits to be had. No wonder they cry about the 47% being lazy, because they are part of that too. What you think that all poor people where lazy democrats, and liberals?

They fooled you so you must be a republican listening to the TParty crying. The rest of us ignore the gloom and doom crying, and the kicking and screaming. They will be right with us in line to get there cut of the pie.

Tal I find it amazing, all the whinging and complaining, here we have various medical benefits, some of which are inadequate, but I don't hear anyone complaining that the scheme should pay less, or that certain people should be excluded.

I think I will put Tom down as a whinger and move on

The righties don't want you to even think of other options or opportunities except gloom, doom, lets just don't try. That's unnacceptable to the left.

Thats unnacceptable to the left.

You talk about left but you guys aren't really left, you are more like all in the centre with left and right tendencies. You should experience what some real lefties are like, mad ideas, big taxes, big expenditure programs

When the system comes crashing down ;don't blame me.
Trustees warn of looming insolvency for Social Security, Medicare - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/23/news/la-pn-trustees-warn-of-looming-insolvency-for-social-security-medicare--20120423)

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/02/08/3-social-security-shockers-from-the-cbos-latest-report/?a_dgi=aolshare_facebook

when the system comes crashing down ;don't blame me.
Trustees warn of looming insolvency for Social Security, Medicare - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/23/news/la-pn-trustees-warn-of-looming-insolvency-for-social-security-medicare--20120423)

3 Social Security Shockers From the CBO's Latest Report - DailyFinance (http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/02/08/3-social-security-shockers-from-the-cbos-latest-report/?a_dgi=aolshare_facebook)

Why should we tom you are part of the SYStem, that group whowants nothing to change

Oh I have some great ideas for change. You won't like them however .


DR. CARSON: Here's my solution: When a person is born, give him a birth certificate, an electronic medical record, and a health savings account to which money can be contributed -- pretax -- from the time you're born 'til the time you die. When you die, you can pass it on to your family members, so that when you're 85 years old and you got six diseases, you're not trying to spend up everything. You're happy to pass it on and there's nobody talking about death panels.

Number one. And also, for the people who were indigent who don't have any money we can make contributions to their HSA each month because we already have this huge pot of money. Instead of sending it to some bureaucracy, let's put it in their HSAs. Now they have some control over their own health care. (21:15 mark... but watch the whole address)

Dr. Benjamin Carson's Amazing Speech at the National Prayer Breakfast with Obama Present - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PFb6NU1giRA)

Trustees warn of looming insolvency for Social Security, Medicare - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/23/news/la-pn-trustees-warn-of-looming-insolvency-for-social-security-medicare--20120423)


Medicare, which is expected to provide health insurance to more than 50 million elderly and disabled Americans this year, is expected to start operating in the red in its largest fund in 2024, according to the annual assessment by the trustees charged with overseeing the programs.

The Obama tweaks are what extended the solvency of the program, and has traditionally been such tweaks done before after a warning of insolvency by the trustees.

3 Social Security Shockers From the CBO's Latest Report - DailyFinance (http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/02/08/3-social-security-shockers-from-the-cbos-latest-report/?a_dgi=aolshare_facebook)


Over the last three decades, the two political parties have periodically forged compromises that extended the solvency of Medicare and Social Security. At one point in the mid-1990s, Medicare's hospital trust fund was projected to run out of money in just four years, before an improving economy and a budget deal between Democrats and Republicans headed off disaster.

It is unclear whether a similar compromise is possible in today's hyper-partisan environment.

That's the bigger issue, not the money, but a collective agreement how toaddressthe issues as been done before. But I also had to note the solution further down at he botom of the article you cited.


There's little you can do to stop the collapse of the Social Security Trust Funds, but you can improve your chances for a comfortable retirement anyway. A strong investing approach is to choose great companies and stick with them for the long term. In our free report "3 Stocks That Will Help You Retire Rich," we name stocks that could help you build long-term wealth and retire well, along with some winning wealth-building strategies that every investor should be aware of. Click here now to keep reading.

Somebody is always looking to cash in on any issue. Must be a capitalist seeing opportunity.

"In our free report "3 Stocks That Will Help You Retire Rich," we name stocks that could help you build long-term wealth and retire well, along with some winning wealth-building strategies that every investor should be aware of. Click here now to keep reading. "

Is that why the word "Advertisement" appears at the top of the page in that LA Times article- perhaps?

Here is Dr Carson on a flat tax...



"What we need to do is come up with something simple. And when I pick up my Bible, you know what I see? I see the fairest individual in the universe, God, and he's given us a system. It's called a tithe."

"We don't necessarily have to do 10% but it's the principle. He didn't say if your crops fail, don't give me any tithe or if you have a bumper crop, give me triple tithe. So there must be something inherently fair about proportionality. You make $10 billion, you put in a billion. You make $10 you put in one. Of course you've got to get rid of the loopholes. Some people say, 'Well that's not fair because it doesn't hurt the guy who made $10 billion as much as the guy who made 10.' Where does it say you've got to hurt the guy? He just put a billion dollars in the pot. We don't need to hurt him. It's that kind of thinking that has resulted in 602 banks in the Cayman Islands. That money needs to be back here building our infrastructure and creating jobs."

"In our free report "3 Stocks That Will Help You Retire Rich," we name stocks that could help you build long-term wealth and retire well, along with some winning wealth-building strategies that every investor should be aware of. Click here now to keep reading. "

Is that why the word "Advertisement" appears at the top of the page in that LA Times article- perhaps?

A well placed advertisement indeed. Ironic to me as I sipped my coffee.


Of course you've got to get rid of the loopholes

That's the whole problem with any system, Gods(?), or mans (or capitalists), loop holes.

There would be no loopholes in a flat tax. Loopholes are prevalent in a progressive system.

Hello again, tom:

What you righty's don't get, or don't CARE to get, is that the single dollar that the guy who earns $10 has to pay, means a lot more to HIM than the billion the $10 billionaire has to give up..

It's not fair. It's not even close.

excon

Loopholes are prevalent whenever a capitalists writes the rules for his greed... oooops... I mean right to make money by any mean necessary even cheat, steal or LIE.

Rich guys will always have a reason to have an exception to any rule. You want a flat tax? Okay are you guys willing to have ALL your money taxed the same way at the same rate? I don't think so. Then you wouldn't need an accountant to find ways to get around paying he whole flat tax you owe. Wonder who gives up all those tax shelters and charitable deductions?

We have been down this road of giving rich guys more loot. It has always resulted in less loot for the rest of the WORLD.

Hello again, tom:

What you righty's don't get, or don't CARE to get, is that the single dollar that the guy who earns $10 has to pay, means a lot more to HIM than the billion the $10 billionaire has to give up..

It's not fair. It's not even close.

excon

You are right... I'll never get that a progressive tax is a fair tax. The way I see it ;punishing success is unfair . It is also stupid because it encourages the loop holes to be created . I think income taxes are a bad idea anyway. But ,if you are going to have them ,then they should be the same as the consumption taxes .Same concept too. The rich spend more ;they pay more in taxes .

Progressive,consumption,flat, doesn't matter because rich guys have power and influence to do as they please and screw the rest.

The more poor people pay, even a dollar, the more a capitalist takes. Its called the free market and its legal because they made it so. Its tyranny with a dollar sign. Slavery with a decimal point.

Free market my a$$, that's a marketing scheme like "job creators" to cover the true greedy nature of rich guys.

here is Dr Carson on a flat tax ......



"What we need to do is come up with something simple. And when I pick up my Bible, you know what I see? I see the fairest individual in the universe, God, and he's given us a system. It's called a tithe."



Yes Tom it is a good system if you bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, but you know Tom the jews found ways not to pay the whiole tithe and look what happened to them, so don't propose the system unless you propose to stick by it, remembering what the tithe was used for; social welfare

In a sense you are right because the religious leaders ran the state .But when Rome was the law it would've been unthinkable to tithe to the Romans.Under the New Covenant tithe should voluntarily go for charity... not to a welfare state . So ,I'll continue to contribute to the church for their ministries . The tithing example related to taxes only works for the purpose of proportionality; not for the purpose of coercive enforcement of what the state deems should be given to charity .

So ,I'll continue to contribute to the church for their ministries. The tithing example related to taxes only works for the purpose of proportionality; not for the purpose of coercive enforcement of what the state deems should be given to charity .
A tithe demanded from every member isn't coercive?

My son's church is very concerned about Haiti and the poverty there and runs missions and donates money to help Haitians (but really isn't sure where the money ends up), yet people in the next suburb over from where their church is located are financially strapped and need mentoring and life/job coaching. There seems to be a disconnect.

Hello again,

The Catholic Church CONTINUES (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/opinion/the-archbishop-rebukes-the-cardinal.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130209)it's lawlessness... I'd NEVER listen to ANYTHING these child molester have to say.

excon

Tom the tithe to the church should not be deductable that robs both God and Casear. I don't wonder why your nation is no longer blessed

Tom the tithe to the church should not be deductable that robs both God and Casear. i don't wonder why your nation is no longer blessed

If you've read my positions on taxation and on the establishment clause then you know I oppose deductions ,and any special ta status given to churches .

Also... as I've already pointed out ; the example of tithing is ONLY useful in it's proportionality of tax rates .

Hello again,

The Catholic Church CONTINUES (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/opinion/the-archbishop-rebukes-the-cardinal.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130209)it's lawlessness... I'd NEVER listen to ANYTHING these child molester have to say.

excon

the rebuke of Cardinal Roger Mahony by his successor is "continuing it's lawlessness" ?

A tithe demanded from every member isn't coercive?

A tithe today is completely voluntary... it is more of a guideline than a mandate. But as I told Clete. The example of a tithe by Dr Carson is used to illustrate the fairness of a flat tax.

if you've read my positions on taxation and on the establishment clause then you know I oppose deductions ,and any special ta status given to churches .

Also .... as I've already pointed out ; the example of tithing is ONLY useful in it's proportionality of tax rates .

Tom a flat tax worked in a society where in reality only the landed gentry paid the tithe, or tax. It is not a reality today at 10% because the tax is required to provide much more. As a example, since we no longer rely on God our medical bills have soared, since we are perpetually at war or in preparation for war, our military is vastly more expensive and since we no longer have benevolent kings builting the inferstructure, that too has to be provided.. as I have said to you before make the tax 20% and a consumption tax and you will get out of the hole you have dug yourself

Dr Duncan makes it a point in saying that he wasn't using 10% as a guideline . His only contention is that no matter what the rate ;it should remain flat . And he's right .

Hello again, tom:

He's WRONG.. A flat tax rewards the wealthy and punishes the poor.. It's a veritable right wing orgasm.

excon

Nothing like a comprehensive jobs program to get us going and increase revenues. Pretty obvious the job creators are busy with other things so we just have to hire new ones. I think if states would partner with federal government instead of trying to control woman's parts and voters, then the could cut the red tap and start repairing a crumbling infrastructure neglected for far to long.

Then at least we won't have to be embarrassed with a power outage during the Superbowl, or power outages after mother nature has knocked down trees that should have been pruned away from power lines last spring. The opportunity to grow the economy is being squandered while interest rates are at damn near zero, while we debate cuts and taxes.

Revenue always has tobe part of the solution.

Hello again, tom:

He's WRONG.. A flat tax rewards the wealthy and punishes the poor.. It's a veritable right wing orgasm.

excon

That explains why they also defend rape as a legit way to make babies.

No he's not wrong... face it... you don't care if there is a balanced budget ;you look at taxes as a redistribution tool .

No, taxes fund projects for the good of all. That's what socialism is.

Congressional Progressive Caucus : The People&#39;s Budget (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/the-peoples-budget/)

http://epi.3cdn.net/55d8ba5873e5bd097e_avm6b8rb1.pdf


The People's Budget is projected to run lower deficits and place public debt on a more
Sustainable trajectory than either the House Republican Budget or the president's budgets. The
Projected surplus in 2021 (0.1% of GDP) compares with a deficit of 1.6% of GDP under the
House Republican Budget56 and 4.9% of GDP under the president's budget (see Figure 4). The People's Budget is projected to bring debt as a share of GDP in 2021 to 64.1%, compared with debt at 67.5% of GDP under the House Republican Budget and 87.4% of GDP under the president's budget (see Figure 5).

You said you liked BALANCED budgets didn't you?

no he's not wrong ... face it ....you don't care if there is a balanced budget ;you look at taxes as a redistribution tool .

There are a number of ways of balancing a budget, Tom, the most popular, or unpopular, are reduced expenditure and higher taxes. Redistribution of income becomes necessary when the majority or large numbers live in poverty while the rich continue in ignorance

The right doesn't want a balanced budget Clete, never have. They want lower taxes for the rich, smaller government, so they can write regulations for themselves and write off half their money to "charities" they create and control, and hide the other half and pay no taxes on it. The want to accomplish it by making the already poor even poorer, cutting programs for the poor, slashing wages and benefits for the middle class, and keep them in their debt through higher prices and shifting costs to the old young poor, and almost poor.

Then they can keep a standing army to clear the way for their businesses overseas, where there already are no rules, no taxes, and nobody to stop them. I have proof in writing by them, its called the Ryan Budget, passed twice in the house, and twice rejected by the American people. Its trickle down economics on steroids, and the preferred business model of capitalists and free marketeers. It benefits greatly a few, and severely punishes the rest.

Matter of fact all their ideas are. Be it taxes, jobs, or climate change, are geared to this philosophy of business. Just ask Tom and his flat tax support that he calls "fair". To them it's the only way, because they are the only ones that benefit. And to them, that's all that matters.

Of course its all that matters because its about having even more money for themselves, screw the rest let them get their own... if there is any left. They don't care if the budget gets balanced, they holler that crap to make sure they get more money and that's what capitalism is about, money before people.

Congressional Progressive Caucus : The People's Budget (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/the-peoples-budget/)

http://epi.3cdn.net/55d8ba5873e5bd097e_avm6b8rb1.pdf



You said you liked BALANCED budgets didn't you?

Balanced yes. This way. Nope. It kills off the middle class. It makes quite a few assumptions that aren't even real and it doesn't address what is going to happen with obamacare.

Please elaborate.

Tal I don't have a problem with a balanced budget, in fact I live in a nation where they appear to have achieved that at a federal level on some occasions in recent memory. Even those you would consider socialist have that objective. We are able to achieve this because generally we don't have an obstructive house and this is because the national leaders and the party with the majority in the house are on the same page so when the budget is written they know they accept the objectives. Your national government appears to have been set up so it cannot govern effectively and I suspect it is part of the same capitalist plot you outline

I think timing is everything and that requires the flexibility to make small changes when needed. We have lost that ability to make those small changes. Even Reagan who I never agreed with was probably the most flexible president we had. I mean he was a trickle downer, and he did trickle a little down, but now the trickle has completely stopped.

The rich turned off the spicket, and have completely cut off all circulation to what we all need. Unlike my right wing friends, I think when the demand is so low then taxes must be raised until circulation has been restored. In a consumer driven economy if you don't feed the consumer, the economy contracts, and the middle class has to hoard whatever they can just to feed themselves.

In a consumer driven economy if you don't feed the consumer, the economy contracts, and the middle class has to hoard whatever they can just to feed themselves.

There is the mistake, the idea that hoarding will preserve your way of life

Its not a way of life, its preserving your grocery bill.

Please elaborate.

There are provisions in it that directly affect the middle class and poor.

• Trains teachers and restores schools; rebuilds roads and bridges and ensures that users help pay for them

Who do you think this will be passed on to? Toll roads so we pay more? Higher gas taxes?

• Implements a progressive estate tax

So if someone does a decent job of working their tush off all of their life and wants to pass something on to the kids then the goobermint wants their slice of the pie too. Great way to step on the middle class and poor as nothing will be left to them.

• Enacts a financial crisis responsibility fee and a financial speculation tax on derivatives and foreign exchange

Many 401k plans allow you to spread the money over a spectrum of investment funds. Many middle class workers have access to a 401k and this would hurt them in the long run.

• Eliminates the individual Social Security payroll cap to make sure upper income earners pay their fair share

This is a lie in the making. If you already pay the maximum level then your going to get the maximum return even at the current settings. What this is is a money grab. Unlike many retirement funds where you have a beneficiary should you pass Social Security has no such provision. They actually hope you die before benefits are paid out.

• Invests in job creation, clean energy and broadband infrastructure, housing and R&D programs

• Cuts defense spending by reducing conventional forces, procurement, and costly R&D programs

Looks like double speak to me. On the one hand R&D is GREAT!! But then again maybe not so great??

That is why I could never be on board with this proposal. Its just another do as I say not do as I do scheme.

Looks like double speak to me. On the one hand R&D is GREAT!! But then again maybe not so great?? The second one refers to R&D specifically in defense.

• Implements a progressive estate tax

So if someone does a decent job of working their tush off all of their life and wants to pass something on to the kids then the goobermint wants their slice of the pie too. Great way to step on the middle class and poor as nothing will be left to them.

Progressives don't believe what's yours is yours, (you didn't build that).


• Enacts a financial crisis responsibility fee and a financial speculation tax on derivatives and foreign exchange

Many 401k plans allow you to spread the money over a spectrum of investment funds. Many middle class workers have access to a 401k and this would hurt them in the long run.

That's just the start, Dems want your 401ks in exchange for government "guaranteed retirement accounts".

The second one refers to R&D specifically in defense.

I know what the inference was. I was just pointing out how on the one hand is good thinking but if it is something they don't find important then your screwed.

QUOTE by califdadof3;
There are provisions in it that directly affect the middle class and poor.

• Trains teachers and restores schools; rebuilds roads and bridges and ensures that users help pay for them

Who do you think this will be passed on to? Toll roads so we pay more? Higher gas taxes?


To help finance these long-term infrastructure improvements, the People’s Budget plan calls for a National Infrastructure Bank (I-Bank) to leverage private capital and direct investment toward projects of national importance. The People’s Budget adopts the six-year plan to establish
The I-Bank as presented in the president’s 2012 budget (part of the six-year surface transportation reauthorization proposal).6 The I-Bank would provide loans and grants to support individual projects and broader activities of significance to our Nation’s economic competitiveness. For example, the I-Bank could support improvements in road and rail access...


The People’s Budget proposes raising the motor fuel excise tax by 25 cents as a direct funding mechanism to recapitalize the Highway Trust Fund and finance this surface transportation reauthorization proposal. This policy would increase the federal excise tax on gasoline to 43.4 cents and on diesel fuel to 49.4 cents per gallon. CBO estimates that raising the motor fuel tax by
25 cents would generate $140.2 billion over the 2012-16 period and $290.9 billion over the next decade.8 The current tax on motor fuels is insufficient to fund today’s level of highway spending, which is already inadequate. This policy would also help to correct for the negative social costs (particularly pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and dependence on foreign oil) of consuming
Petroleum.


• Implements a progressive estate tax

So if someone does a decent job of working their tush off all of their life and wants to pass something on to the kids then the goobermint wants their slice of the pie too. Great way to step on the middle class and poor as nothing will be left to them.

NOBODY in the middle class or upper middle class is even remotely affected by this tax on high end earners and we are talking millionaires here.


• Enacts a financial crisis responsibility fee and a financial speculation tax on derivatives and foreign exchange

Many 401k plans allow you to spread the money over a spectrum of investment funds. Many middle class workers have access to a 401k and this would hurt them in the long run.

Nothing to do with 401k's, think hedge funds and venture capitalists. WallStreet,and Banks. Hey they got bailedout,its their turn.


To offset the revenue loss relative to current law, and to meet deficit reduction targets, the People’s Budget would also broaden the base of the derivatives and speculation tax (see p. 19) to include up to a 0.1 percentage point speculation tax on each side of stock and equities transactions. Specifically, assuming a 50% behavioral reduction in trading volumes, such a transactions tax would raise up to $541.4 billion over 2012-21.36

I will add during he last crisis, many 401k's lost money.


• Eliminates the individual Social Security payroll cap to make sure upper income earners pay their fair share

This is a lie in the making. If you already pay the maximum level then your going to get the maximum return even at the current settings. What this is is a money grab. Unlike many retirement funds where you have a beneficiary should you pass Social Security has no such provision. They actually hope you die before benefits are paid out.

SS has surviving spouse and children benefits

Survivors Planner: Social Security Benefit Amounts For The Surviving Spouse By Year Of Birth (http://www.socialsecurity.gov/survivorplan/survivorchartred.htm)


The increase in the taxable maximum on the employee side is gradually phased in over five years. The increase in employer contributions for high earners (those employees earning more than $106,800) would be phased in immediately. This option maintains the benefits structure as is, and benefit
Computations would reflect all earnings up to the new taxable maximum on the employee side, although increased employer contributions would not affect benefit computations. This policy raises $445.0 billion over five years, and around $1.2 trillion over 10 years. Social Security outlays would increase by $2.8 billion over 10 years.

Under the current system, income above a taxable maximum is not subject to any Social Security tax, meaning that high-income individuals pay less as a share of their income than everyone else. As income inequality has widened, a greater share of income has fallen outside of the taxable maximum, with the percent of earnings covered by the program slipping from 91% in 1983 to just 83% in 2009.13


• Invests in job creation, clean energy and broadband infrastructure, housing and R&D programs

• Cuts defense spending by reducing conventional forces, procurement, and costly R&D programs

Looks like double speak to me. On the one hand R&D is GREAT!! But then again maybe not so great??

That is why I could never be on board with this proposal. Its just another do as I say not do as I do scheme.


These proposals and their respective budgetary impact were compiled by Congressional Progressive Caucus staff in conjunction with Congressional Research Service staff and provided to EPI. Overall, these policy proposals would gradually reduce defense appropriations by $692.2 billion over the 2012-21 period, relative to the CBO baseline. Relative to higher spending levels
In the president’s budget request, they would represent $816.7 billion in savings over the next decade. In both cases, the savings are well within the bounds of the savings identified as reasonable by the SDTF report. Taken in conjunction with ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the realignment of conventional and strategic forces would result in $2.3 trillion worth of savings relative to the
Adjusted CBO baseline.

NOBODY in the middle class or upper middle class is even remotely affected by this tax on high end earners and we are talking millionaires here.



Nothing to do with 401k's, think hedge funds and venture capitalists. WallStreet,and Banks. Hey they got bailedout,its their turn.



I will add during he last crisis, many 401k's lost money.



SS has surviving spouse and children benefits

Survivors Planner: Social Security Benefit Amounts For The Surviving Spouse By Year Of Birth (http://www.socialsecurity.gov/survivorplan/survivorchartred.htm)



I see no cap on that estate tax. You should keep in mind anyone making $250,000 in a years time is a rich person. And I can easily see this tax being applied should someone pay off their home and try to pass it along.

The added tax is going to hit the middle class and poor the most as does driving up the cost of anything.

Nothing about 401K's?

Might want to read this:

http://wiki.fool.com/The_Use_of_Hedge_Funds_in_401(k)

The surviving benefits are only applied in an if/then situation. You couldn't pass them to your nephews or nieces should you not have children of your own upon your demize or give it to charity if that is what you decide to do.

If your children are over 18 then they get nothing.

If your spouse (10 years or longer) survives you and has a lessor benefit then they can collect.

Like
Speech said... the Dems have plans for them 401-Ks .They think people are too stupid to make their own financial decisions.

People's Budget Plan; anything with the word people attached to it has got to be bad, right, got to be socialist, right.

The policy would include a $3.5 million exemption ($7 million for married couples), leaving 99.75% of all estates fully exempt. The taxable portion of estates beyond these exemptions would be subject to a progressive series of marginal tax rates as follows: a 45% rate up to $10 million; a 50% rate up to $50 million; a 55% rate up to $500 million; and a 65% rate on the portion of estates worth over $500 million.34

http://wiki.fool.com/The_Use_of_Hedge_Funds_in_401(k


There is currently no text in this page. You can search for this page title in other pages, or search the related logs. ??


The added tax is going to hit the middle class and poor the most as does driving up the cost of anything.

As does a flat tax on wages. And the SS rules have been the rules for a long time I fail to see the relevance. In addition the scoring that was done was based on he CBO scoring of the Obama budget,and this is the link that's was used to fully explain it.

http://epi.3cdn.net/55d8ba5873e5bd097e_avm6b8rb1.pdf

And I see nothing in this bill that affects anyone's 401k, so please point it out.

That looks like a heafty estate tax, you could call it confiscation because it would cause forced realisation of assets to pay the tax. Such taxes are regressive resulting in tax evasion behaviour. I can see now why the rich give so much away and establish trusts to hold their assets

That link went bad. It explained how 401K and hedge funds were related. It actually explained it pretty well. How 401k money can be used in hedge funds and how the related tax your speaking of can affect it.

The SSI rules won't change but what they are asking for is more money to pay for the system.

The fair tax is much better then the flat tax.

The numbers your quoting create a deficit and you don't conceive they will want to adjust that if it were to pass? And is there a real reason to punish the rich with a 65% tax penalty ?

I still wonder why you want to punish success ?

Because it take all of us to get us out of this malaise, and the ones who have benefited the most would seem the ones who would want it the most. That's not punishment, its joint effort.

Remember what I said about adjustments, and flexibility to overcome obstacles? Well this is that flexibility. Balancing a budget and expansion of growth, and all our children will be left with something to build on.

You want tax cuts back? Then help work to put us on a path you can afford it. Then rich guys wouldn't have to lie and call themselves "job creators".

I agree dad you should not penalise success, but the tax burden has to fall equitably, those who accumulate benefit from public provided inferstructure, stability from government programs, etc and therefore should contribute more, but taxation should not be punitive of confiscation, these are outmoded ideas

Because it take all of us to get us out of this malaise, and the ones who have benefited the most would seem the ones who would want it the most. Thats not punishment, its joint effort.

Remember what I said about adjustments, and flexibility to overcome obstacles? Well this is that flexibility. Balancing a budget and expansion of growth, and all our children will be left with something to build on.

You want tax cuts back? Then help work to put us on a path you can afford it. Then rich guys wouldn't have to lie and call themselves "job creators".

What I want doesn't make a difference. I believe in the fair tax. But because it is fair its not on the politicians radar. It removes the power they have. It would crate jobs and bring this economy back booming.

I also believe an estate tax of 65% is punitive. If a person came up with an idea and saw it come to fruition and made 1 billion dollars. Then why is the government entitled to 650 million of it? Most people with money like that don't hoarde the money. They spend wisely and they also give to charities. It doesn't matter the political lean they give back in their own way.

Look at the evolution of Microsoft. Is there a reason for Bill Gates to be punished for living out the American dream ?

If you teach your children to succeed do you really want to tell them just don't succeed too much because it is bad for you.

Most people with money like that don't hoarde the money. They spend wisely and they also give to charities. It doesn't matter the political lean they give back in their own way.

Look at the evolution of Microsoft. Is there a reason for Bill Gates to be punished for living out the American dream ?

If you teach your children to succeed do you really want to tell them just don't succeed too much because it is bad for you

It is clear that the left objects to charitible giving because they don't control where it goes.

I may be wrong but Bill Gates and others like him have many options in the tax code to mitigate their tax burden, and correct me if I am wrong but hasn't he put half his wealth into charitable foundations to direct his wealth

Financials - Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/Pages/financials.aspx)


In October of 2006, our trustees created a two-entity structure: the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (foundation) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust (trust). Both entities are tax-exempt private foundations that are structured as a charitable trust. Each entity has a distinct purpose, as explained below.

So lets drop this punishment notion, as we saw the last rich guy running for president NOT take all his deductions for charity at the time to keep his taxes on paper at least high enough to be respectable(?), and he still can take the deduction in the next 3 years.

That's some punishment, and pales in light of cuts to senior and children who cannot afford heat, shelter, and food. Now if these foundations and charities were addressing those needs, you would have a stronger case, but sorry right now you do not.

So maybe we need to better define what fair is because because 10% from a poor guy and 10% percent froma rich guy is in no way equal, or fair.


it is clear that the left objects to charitible giving because they don't control where it goes.

Nice spin, but no matter where it goes it lowers tax burdens on extremely wealthy people.

Hello dad:


I also believe an estate tax of 65% is punitive. If a person came up with an idea and saw it come to fruition and made 1 billion dollars. Then why is the government entitled to 650 million of it? From a businessman's perspective, because there's STILL $350 million left over for me. And, if I have to give the government $650 million in order to make $350 million for my family, I'm going to DO it. Look.. I don't like taxes.. But, they've NEVER stopped me from pursing the American Dream..

Plus, I'm an American.. I'm HERE because I LOVE my country - not because I make money here... If the government took MORE, I STILL wouldn't leave...

Excon

Tal you don't get it, if you have tax at punative levels then your wealthy people will protect themselves. A 65% estsate tax is regressive, not progressive. I don't believe in estate taxes at all unless you are going to abolish income tax. The government should only get one opportunity to collect tax, they either get it coming or they get it going. Obviously waiting for the population to die isn't effective as a revenue measure so estate taxes should be abolished in favour of higher income taxes

You say why punish success, I say why punish misfortune?

What happened to no deductions and lower rates ? You can't give me a good argument against that... except your notions about punishing success.

Hello dad:

From a businessman's perspective, because there's STILL $350 million left over for me. And, if I have to give the government $650 million in order to make $350 million for my family, I'm gonna DO it. Look.. I don't like taxes.. But, they've NEVER stopped me from pursing the American Dream..

Plus, I'm an American.. I'm HERE because I LOVE my country - not because I make money here... If the government took MORE, I STILL wouldn't leave...

excon

Ex you miss the point in order to give the government their money assets are going to have to be liquidated and that usually isn't effective and can lead to big losses. You could wind up eliminating the entire portfolio ans still not have enough to meet the tax so then you have given them everything but you don't care you are dead

Tal you don't get it, if you have tax at punative levels then your wealthy people will protect themselves. A 65% estsate tax is regressive, not progressive. I don't believe in estate taxes at all unless you are going to abolish income tax. The government should only get one opportunity to collect tax, they either get it coming or they get it going. Obviously waiting for the population to die isn't effective as a revenue measure so estate taxes should be abolished in favour of higher income taxes

What part of being able to mitigate your tax burden is it you do not understand? NOBODY will pay a 65% rate, not even close.

How do you defend corporate welfare and say welfare for people is evil?

What part of being able to mitigate your tax burden is it you do not understand? NOBODY will pay a 65% rate, not even close.

How do you defend corporate welfare and say welfare for people is evil?

How do keep plying the myth that the right hates poor people?

it is clear that the left objects to charitible giving because they don't control where it goes.

That would be why they don't give a rip about redefining church ministries and I'm guessing why IRS audits of charities have gone up 79% under Obama (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2013/02/06/why_are_irs_audits_on_charities_up_by_79_301338.ht ml).

P.S. And they whine about us hating poor people?

That would be why they don't give a rip about redefining church ministries and I'm guessing why IRS audits of charities have gone up 79% under Obama.Because fraud is bad no matter who does it. If they have done nothing wrong then a clear audit will result.

How do keep plying the myth that the right hates poor people?

Because the right talks about them like undeserving dogs, and want them to give more of what they don't have, while taking away what they need just to get by. That's why.

Maybe not you personally, but you voted for those that have said so, and done so in writing.

Because fraud is bad no matter who does it. If they have done nothing wrong then a clear audit will result.

And every dollar they have to spend trying to prove their innocence is a dollar that doesn't go to that person in need. A 79% increase is a witch hunt.

Because the right talks about them like undeserving dogs, and want them to give more of what they don't have, while taking away what they need just to get by. Thats why.

That's just another damn lie.

Is it a fact you supported the rich guy who hides his money and the voucher guy who wants to shift the money from the government helping old people, and children to old people, and children?

Did you vote for the rich guy who said 47% of the people are takers and knew he would never get their vote?

It is a fact that the right believes people should help each other whenever possible, not just pass it off on the kind of heartless, inefficient, INCOMPETENT, LYING bureaucrats such as those that had the DUTY to help my daughter. You're goading the wrong person on this, Tal. I KNOW how it works, at least if you're a disabled, single white woman.

How do you defend corporate welfare and say welfare for people is evil?

Here is how. If your MR/Mrs big business and I give you a tax break for every new hire you take in that is coming off the welfare roles. To you that is looked at as coporate welfare. It brings positive results and breeds a sense of self worth. Something you don't get from the social welfare system.

Welfare for people isn't evil unless and until a line is crossed. That line being those that either;

A: Game the system to defraud it. Or

B: Are an able body person that wants to stay on welfare for generations.


To me that is not what welfare is about. It is about a hand up not a hand out. It is NOT an entitlement program it IS a safety net. When it crosses the line from being a safety net then it is wrong.

LOL, a tax break for hiring is very much a GREAT idea, as long as its here in America, but not all poor people game the system. Some are trapped and even more have lost touch with reality, and some just need the right instruction.

And sadly some need a lot more help than a welfare check. Its more complex than people care to believe since its easier to just dismiss them as lazy failures and criminals. Some are, but far more are not.

Hmm, seems he made that proper distinction between welfare being a good thing and crossing the line.

Speaking of crossing the line, Debbie Downer, the DNC Chairwoman, trotted out a Democratic official as her symbolic "Medicare recipient from Florida" to do a little fear mongering about Marco Rubio.

Democratic House chairwoman Wasserman Schultz caught in deception with reporters (http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2521195#.URlXEZUi_1c.twitter)

Reminds me of Obama using that Ohio woman in his push for Obamacare that was going to lose her home and all but really wasn't, or that chick that said her contraception cost her $3000, or making them more widely available (and free) in a country where use is already "almost universal."

making them more widely available (and free) in a country where use is already "almost universal."

As long as you don't make it mandatory

Tonight we will hear the worse job creator in the county say that he wants to increase the nation's debts to continue his failed job creating policies.

Tom, don't be cynical, just because the man doesn't have the same political views as you do, I think we would all like to see he has proposal to reduce national debt, but the question is ; are you ready for the pain? The only way you will reduce the debt is to devalue the currency

tonight we will hear the worse job creator in the county say that he wants to increase the nation's debts to continue his failed job creating policies.
... and take away all the guns and total amnesty for all illegals.

Sure an it would be a fine day if he could please everyone

The best part is listening to the two republican TParty rebuttals. Rubio is rehashing the last election that was rejected by the electorate, and I may pop in a Netflix movie for Paul.

Nohing to see here, move along.

The best part is listening to the two republican TParty rebuttals. Rubio is rehashing the last election that was rejected by the electorate, and I may pop in a Netflix movie for Paul.

Nohing to see here, move along.
I'm wondering if Rubio was watching and listening to the same speech I was.

Do these rebuttal guys get an advance copy of the speech or just write from the seat of their pants?

Rand Paul will not be televised, but its online so hope you have a movie ready to go.

Rand Paul will not be televised, but its online so hope you have a movie ready to go.
I decided to read about the Big Bear Lake situation.

Yes good that that one is over and another nail in the coffin of gun control

tonight we will hear the worse job creator in the county say that he wants to increase the nation's debts to continue his failed job creating policies.

But it sounded good, and won't increase the deficit by a dime.

To holler beyach and whine is an unnacceptable solution. To shift the deficit to just the poor, elderly and children is unnacceptable, and that notion was voted down already, whether you face the fact or NOT.

To holler beyach and whine is an unnacceptable solution. To shift the deficit to just the poor, elderly and children is unnacceptable, and that notion was voted down already, whether you face the fact or NOT.

Dude, it's simple math. You can't just keep spending money you don't have, and if you believe his ideas won't increase the deficit a dime I'd like to make you a deal on some beach front property here in the panhandle.

The same old raise the minimum wage crap just makes it worse for the people it's supposed to help. Employers aren't going to pay more money than someone is worth, they will go with experience and fewer workers rather than pay $9.00 and hour to someone who only gives them $7.00 in production.Add the heavier government footprint from liberal policies raising the cost of living what have you accomplished? Nothing but expanding government dependency which takes more government resources away from those who TRULY need that safety net.

I will always 'beyach' about policies that punish success, encourage dependency, drag down the economy and steer resources AWAY from those who need it most. I KNOW firsthand, remember?

I also know first hand how a Walmart's makes billions off cheap labor and sweat shops. It's the same profits over people crap that the right has been spouting for years pandering to what a business needs to survive. As long as the right fails to recognize that the business model is broken, then we will continue to have deficits and poor people, and that has nothing to do with government, but more to do with the right trying to destroy government so the job creators can make money without creating jobs.

Your premise that just because a worker makes 7 dollars an hour that's all they are worth is a false one. Employers know full well that they can make their workers seek government assistance to subsidize their employees, and pad their bottom lines even more.

I also know first hand how a Walmarts makes billions off cheap labor and sweat shops. It's the same profits over people crap that the right has been spouting for years pandering to what a business needs to survive. As long as the right fails to recognize that the business model is broken, then we will continue to have deficits and poor people, and that has nothing to do with government, but more to do with the right trying to destroy government so the job creators can make money without creating jobs.

Your premise that just because a worker makes 7 dollars an hour that's all they are woth is a false one. Employeers know full well that they can make their workers seek government assistance to subsidize their employees, and pad their bottom lines even more.

Dude, your president and Democrats in congress are no less beholden to corporate interests than anyone else. The only difference is your guys keep trying to engineer change by picking winners and losers in the market instead of letting businesses compete. How many Solyndras do we need? How many $100k Tesla cars or Chevy Volts that no one wants do we need? How many billions does Al Gore need? And what do we get from this guy, more of the same old crap.He didn't fool Kirsten Powers (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/02/13/kirsten-powers-state-of-the-union/1914215/), and he doesn't fool me...


The edict on climate change was despotic, not liberal. I believe climate change is a problem and humans contribute to it. However, 'either do what I say or I will just start issuing executive orders' that make green energy companies rich is not the kind of governing we should be lauding, regardless of party or ideological bent.

You're happy with platitudes and applause lines that boost your self-esteem, I want results.

Why do you guys want a working family at Walmart to be punished for having a low paying job?

Why do you guys keep emphasizing the failures in the energy departments programs and completely ignore the successes? I sent you the link ages ago. An 85% success rate ain't failure my friend.

Admit it, you don't want smart effective government, you want no government, except if it benefits YOU. When it doesn't you holler about it. But in fact it does work for those that learn to navigate the process. That's not easy, I admit it, but millions do it.

If you are going to be the party of gloom, and doom, at least stay out of the way of those that have hope.

This was predictable..

As the state moves to expand healthcare coverage to millions of Californians under President Obama's healthcare law, it faces a major obstacle: There aren't enough doctors to treat a crush of newly insured patients.

Some lawmakers want to fill the gap by redefining who can provide healthcare.

LA Times (http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-74361142/)

Maybe we can put some of the illegal aliens in doctors smocks... doing the jobs Americans won't do.

Why do you guys want a working family at Walmart to be punished for having a low paying job?

Dude, who is forcing anyone to work at Wal-Mart?


Why do you guys keep emphasizing the failures in the energy departments programs and completely ignore the successes? I sent you the link ages ago. An 85% success rate ain't failure my friend.

Because it isn't the government's role to pick winners and losers. You guuys spew all those platitudes about fairness but how fair is it for a guy trying to start up a small business with an idea to get nothing while a friend of POTUS gets a few hundred million?


Admit it, you don't want smart effective government, you want no government, except if it benefits YOU. When it doesn't you holler about it. But in fact it does work for those that learn to navigate the process. That's not easy, I admit it, but millions do it.

Admit it, you don't know what smart, effective government is and we shouldn't have to "navigate the process "


If you are going to be the party of gloom, and doom, at least stay out of the way of those that have hope.

We're not the ones telling Americans they don't stand a chance without Obama's benevolent care.

Some lawmakers want to fill the gap by redefining who can provide healthcare.


maybe we can put some of the illegal aliens in doctors smocks... doing the jobs Americans won't do.

Probably won't notice a drop-off in care once Obamacare kicks in fully.

Speaking of whining about Obama's bad investments...


Inspector general: Grant money for battery company not ‘managed effectively’ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ig-grant-money-for-battery-company-not-been-managed-effectively/2013/02/13/b07c626a-75e3-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_story.html)

The Energy Department gave $150 million in economic recovery act funds to a battery company, LG Chem Michigan, which has yet to manufacture cells used in any vehicles sold to the public and whose workers passed time watching movies, playing board, card and video games or volunteering for animal shelters and community groups.

Those are the conclusions of a report released Wednesday morning by Energy Department Inspector General Gregory H. Friedman, who said that the grant to a subsidiary of South Korean giant LG “had not been managed effectively.”

Now see that's the problem with Wal-Mart jobs, they just aren't paying people enough to play Spades and video games on taxpayer dollars while providing zero goods and services.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman
Why do you guys want a working family at Walmart to be punished for having a low paying job?

Dude, who is forcing anyone to work at Wal-Mart?

Dude they want to work, not a lot of options for work is there?

Quote:

Why do you guys keep emphasizing the failures in the energy departments programs and completely ignore the successes? I sent you the link ages ago. An 85% success rate ain't failure my friend.

Because it isn't the government's role to pick winners and losers. You guuys spew all those platitudes about fairness but how fair is it for a guy trying to start up a small business with an idea to get nothing while a friend of POTUS gets a few hundred million?

Its the governments role to help small business thru programs that have had great results. Go ahead try a bank loan and let me know how that works for you. Last I checked it wasn't just friends that get in on these programs and take years to get backing, friend or foe. Even solyndra wa already in the process long before Obama got to be president

PolitiFact | Did the program that funded the Solyndra loan start under George W. Bush? David Plouffe says so (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/17/david-plouffe/solyndra-loan-george-w-bush-david-plouffe/)


Republicans, including Bush, emphasized the program's benefits for nuclear energy and biofuels. The president touted the new energy law in his 2007 State of the Union address. His energy secretary, Samuel Bodman, regularly mentioned the loan guarantees in speeches on renewable energy. The Energy Department issued its final rules for the program in 2007, along with a list of 16 companies that made the cut for to apply for its first round of awards, and Solyndra was among them.

House Republicans investigating Solyndra have claimed that the Bush administration ultimately rejected the Solyndra loan, but that's not quite the case. Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and news media point out that Bush energy officials wanted to get the loan closed on their way out the door — it was listed as the first of their "three highest priorities through January 15." (Obama took office Jan. 20, 2009.) But the Energy Department's credit committee held things up for more analysis.

Quote:

Admit it, you don't want smart effective government, you want no government, except if it benefits YOU. When it doesn't you holler about it. But in fact it does work for those that learn to navigate the process. That's not easy, I admit it, but millions do it.

Admit it, you don't know what smart, effective government is and we shouldn't have to "navigate the process "

You should at least know the process and procedure. There is always a process and procedure to know and follow. Try fixing a wall outlet without shutting of the power, and let me know how it went

Quote:

If you are going to be the party of gloom, and doom, at least stay out of the way of those that have hope.

We're not the ones telling Americans they don't stand a chance without Obama's benevolent care.

Thats not what we are saying either, we say stop ering with the right and move the country forward and give all of us a chance not just the rich guys who sucked all the money out of the system.

Thats not what we are saying either, we say stop ering with the right and move the country forward and give all of us a chance not just the rich guys who sucked all the money out of the system.

"You didn't build that," Julia etc.Yeah, that's exactly what he's saying along with this broken record that keeps skipping at the part about rich guys. And the irony is you still can't see your guys are just as rich and far up corporate America's a$$ as anyone.

And the irony is you still can't see your guys are just as rich and far up corporate America's a$$ as anyone.That's correct... for both parties. Unless you enact some reform for your politicians it'll never change.

That's correct...for both parties. Unless you enact some reform for your politicians it'll never change.

OK, then let's stop this charade of Democrat nobility on that point.

If you stop the republican nobility. Deal.

If you stop the republican nobility. Deal.

That might be relevant if I had ever started.

I get it - your sh!t don't stink either, right? <sigh>

USA Today asked for social media response to SOTU and one word came up most often, "screwed (http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/02/12/words-describing-state-of-the-union/1913555/)."

CNN on the other hand thinks Rubio is screwed for needing a drink of water.

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BDA64IpCAAAV1rw.jpg


Personally I thought Boehner blowing his nose and Biden scratching his neck behind Zero was more interesting.That and McCain's Shamnesty Shake.


http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/731001404.gif?key=368247&Expires=1360794435&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIYVGSUJFNRFZBBTA&Signature=x~9YCzVYzSOFmTjG-x6kFGl5nQvHy0vN8URtVCI-rd~zmmIqvk4Y358RA~PzbSdC5iSBVzSdKqhrzUhxvWdojUJNMG uqXuLPACR2ey0Fw9dKzBy38ruw1ywWLeVw2R42MOeSyf3NXYWn LL9mmY6KqWXYxVTAPLj80rTuiO0mBPM_

http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/large/731001404.gif?key=368247&Expires=1360794435&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIYVGSUJFNRFZBBTA&Signature=x~9YCzVYzSOFmTjG-x6kFGl5nQvHy0vN8URtVCI-rd~zmmIqvk4Y358RA~PzbSdC5iSBVzSdKqhrzUhxvWdojUJNMG uqXuLPACR2ey0Fw9dKzBy38ruw1ywWLeVw2R42MOeSyf3NXYWn LL9mmY6KqWXYxVTAPLj80rTuiO0mBPM_

Is he laughing or crying? Who's the disinterested dude on the left?

I get it - your sh!t don't stink either, right?. <sigh>

Dude, you never know when to quit do you?

McCain looked orgasmic when Zero started talking illegal alien shamnesty

Who's the republican lackey editing the posts?

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRRa5NO95_P1hQoty40F6JVeV77lcUZX Jt0F9YCOqjhaIGhqYKRQw
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQNYBxG0c5fHUh9FPGDLYJHciOjs12wL 9TEB8je3Ng_o9B7pZwFXg

So people need water, and watergate has already been used

So people need water, and watergate has already been used
Speechifying is thirsty work!

At least we treat our politicians as mere humans, not Messiahs.

At least we treat our politicians as mere humans, not Messiahs.I still don't understand why you view Obama as the messiah, you rightys are the only ones here who mention that.

I still don;t understand why you view Obama as the messiah, you rightys are the only ones here who mention that.

LOL, still haven't learned to stop challenging me on the facts? In denial? I've posted MANY times about who considers Obama more than a mere human. Here's a collection (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/its-come-713241-14.html#post3324381) of lefties worshiping their Messiah. Louis Farrakhan even declared him so (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/09/will-msm-report-louis-farrakhan-declaration-obama-messiah). He is the "Magic N..... (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,3391015.story) - oops, I can't say it without being reprimanded or censored.

It's easy to understand when the cult of Obama makes it so plain.

So he IS the Messiah! You should probably listen to him, those are intelligent people who are calling him that, you should take heed and stop calling him names and debasing him.

At least we treat our politicians as mere humans, not Messiahs.

Ahmmmm, when did that happen? Every hopefull is the new massiah over there, Romney was the great white hope, you build them up and then you drop them when they don't win

ahmmmm, when did that happen? Every hopefull is the new massiah over there, Romney was the great white hope, you build them up and then you drop them when they don't win

There's a huge difference between hoping your side wins and worshiping your candidate.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, as warned prior to the election Obama is about to hammer seniors now that he's safely in office again.


Here Comes The Boom: CMS Slashes Medicare Advantage; 'Disarray For Many Seniors' (http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2013/02/19/here-comes-the-boom-cms-slashes-medicare-advantage-disarray-for-many-seniors/)

Though Democrats denied it during the 2012 campaign, Obamacare cut Medicare by $716 billion in order to partially fund $1.9 trillion in new entitlement spending over the next ten years. A big chunk of those Medicare cuts came from the market-oriented Medicare Advantage program. Cleverly, the Obama administration postponed the Medicare Advantage cuts until after the election, so as to persuade seniors that everything would be just fine. But the election is over. On Friday, the administration announced that it would be significantly reducing funding for the popular program. Obama's proposal, according to one analyst, “would turn almost every plan in the industry unprofitable.”

Democrats have long been hostile to the Medicare Advantage program, which allows seniors to get their Medicare coverage through plans administered by private insurers. Today, more than a quarter of retirees get their coverage through Medicare Advantage, and the program has experienced rapid growth over the past decade. Richard Foster, the recently-retired chief actuary of the Medicare program, has projected that Obamacare's cuts to Medicare Advantage would force half of its current enrollees to switch back to the old, 1965-vintage Medicare program. Robert Book and James Capretta estimate that this will cost enrollees an average of $3,714 in 2017 alone.

Damn those Republicans for wanting to push granny over the cliff.

There's a huge difference between hoping your side wins and worshiping your candidate.
But Obama can sing on key and dance like a dream! The other guy couldn't do either one.

Romney actually personally rescued people, physically and financially. Singing to them wouldn't have done much good... just like Obama did to seniors during the campaign only to pull the rug out a few months later.

Singing to them wouldn't have done much goodNeither does praying but it gives people comfort and that's the point I guess.

Romney actually personally rescued people, physically and financially.
He also ended their worklives.

Neither does praying but it gives people comfort and that's the point I guess.

Well that was totally irrelevant to my point.

Romney rescues capsized boaters (http://www.dailynewstranscript.com/news/x1128483358#axzz2LetZBaM1)

BIG-HEARTED MITT (http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/05/13/051312-news-romney-web/)
Romney’s life characterized by little-told stories of generosity

Why are we talking about yesterday's man, I say give Obama a chance, if he stuffs up you have more ammunition for the next election, but with a Senate bent on allowing nothing to pass it just ain't going to happen. How it is possible you allow a minority to be obstructive is beyond me.

why are we talking about yesterday's man, I say give Obama a chance, if he stuffs up you have more ammunition for the next election, but with a Senate bent on allowing nothing to pass it just ain't goin to happen. How it is possible you allow a minority to be obstructive is beyond me.

I say why let Obama ruin us and what's wrong with protecting the minority from having no say?

Good news on Obamacare (which may have been mentioned elsewhere) , more than 800 pages were added to the Obamacare regulations last week, bringing it to over 20,000 pages. Or, this big:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BFGcd8oCUAEEc7k.jpg

And in even better news, Applying for Obama plan not easy (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jtfD5wmiNc7sUfvQzES7vHJZpcWQ?docId=f3f34515d bd940aead0c117e6444f677).

You don't say.


Applying for benefits under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul could be as daunting as doing your taxes.

The government's draft application runs 15 pages for a three-person family. An outline of the online version has 21 steps, some with additional questions.

Seven months before the Oct. 1 start of enrollment season for millions of uninsured Americans, the idea that getting health insurance could be as easy as shopping online at Amazon or Travelocity is starting to look like wishful thinking.

At least three major federal agencies, including the IRS, will scrutinize your application. Checking your identity, income and citizenship is supposed to happen in real time, if you apply online.

That's just the first part of the process...

"This lengthy draft application will take a considerable amount of time to fill out and will be difficult for many people to be able to complete," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, an advocacy group supporting the health care law. "It does not get you to the selection of a plan."

"When you combine those two processes, it is enormously time consuming and complex," added Pollack. He's calling for the government to simplify the form and, more important, for an army of counselors to help uninsured people navigate the new system. It's unclear who would pay for these navigators.

The Leviathan cometh...

I say why let Obama ruin us and what's wrong with protecting the minority from having no say?

Speech, no one objects to the minority providing their opinion, but when they are able to obstruct the process to the point that nothing gets done then this is not democracy

Good news on Obamacare (which may have been mentioned elsewhere) , more than 800 pages were added to the Obamacare regulations last week, bringing it to over 20,000 pages. Or, this big:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BFGcd8oCUAEEc7k.jpg

And in even better news, Applying for Obama plan not easy (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jtfD5wmiNc7sUfvQzES7vHJZpcWQ?docId=f3f34515d bd940aead0c117e6444f677).

You don't say.



The Leviathan cometh...

I would agree with you that legislation like that is ridiculous noit because of what it is designed to achieve but because it cannot be understood

There is no question that this will hasten the destruction of Medicare.

Hello again, tom:


there is no question that this will hasten the destruction of Medicare.So, the right wing is going to do it FIRST.

Excon

Hello again, tom:

So, the right wing is gonna do it FIRST.

excon

Dude, look at the picture.

I think it's a big problem when clerks in chiropractor's offices are collecting all types of unrelated data from their patients and submitting it to a central data bank .
Obamacare is now estimated to at least double its projected $940 billion price tag. It will STILL leave 30 million people uninsured by 2022... and will increase the cost of and reduce the availability of services for seniors on Medicare. And that's what we know already before full implementation.

Hello again, tom:


And that's what we know already before full implementation.Uhhh, you don't KNOW it. You SAY it. That's different. But, you've SAID stuff before that wasn't true about Obamacare. Why should I believe you now?

Here's a GOOD example of WHY I shouldn't believe you... On Sunday, some right winger was saying that, (in terms of real $$'s) the federal government is taking in MORE taxes than it EVER has before...

Now, that's true, but totally irrelevant, and misleading. In fact, it's like your stack of papers.. It may be TRUE, but totally irrelevant and very misleading..

Now, IF that right winger had said that, in terms of GDP, the government is taking in FEWER taxes than it ever has, that would have been true.. But, he couldn't SAY that, because it doesn't fit the political narrative..

So, you can take your stack of papers, and your death panels and stick 'em.

Excon

We've not been told even a hint of the truth on the Dems plans for helath care from the beginning other than a few candid moments that slipped, like we have to pass it to know what's in it. Robert Reich was candid (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574473331382043514.html) back in 2007 and I might say, prescient:


I will actually give you a speech made up entirely--almost at the spur of the moment, of what a candidate for president would say if that candidate did not care about becoming president. In other words, this is what the truth is, and a candidate will never say, but what candidates should say if we were in a kind of democracy where citizens were honored in terms of their practice of citizenship, and they were educated in terms of what the issues were, and they could separate myth from reality in terms of what candidates would tell them:

"Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I'm so glad to see you, and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health-care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. [laughter] That's true, and what I'm going to do is I am going to try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people. But that means you--particularly you young people, particularly you young, healthy people--you're going to have to pay more. [applause] Thank you.

"And by the way, we are going to have to--if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive, so we're going to let you die. [applause]

"Also, I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid--we already have a lot of bargaining leverage--to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. But that means less innovation, and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market, which means you are probably not going to live that much longer than your parents. [applause] Thank you."

Hello again, Steve:

So, your problem with Obamacare is rationing, huh? I got it.. Why can't YOU get that when people CAN'T afford to buy insurance, THAT'S rationing too??

Obamacare changes WHO is rationed out.. Under YOUR plan, it's the poor. Under Obamacare, it's the people who would live a week longer, for only, say several MILLION dollars.

Is it fine with YOU that we spend that money?? Or is it easier just to PRETEND they're getting that care at the ER, or somewhere for FREE??

excon

None of the above, I'm tired of the lies. The blatant, intentional dishonesty about Obamacare and Medicare should have you pi$$ed off too, but I get that your side is OK with getting your agenda through by whatever means necessary. You guys have demonstrated that on these pages time and again.

No we don't know that at all. That's just what you guys say. Don't let a stack of papers scare you, the PDF is shorter, 974 pages.

http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/patient-protection.pdf

This version is 2400 pages. We have had 3 years to read the darn thing to see what it does, and how it bends the cost down, as compared to the Romney/Ryan/Republican plan which cannot be scored because there are NO details to score the damn thing. We do know they just shift the costs to consumers, and lower taxes, gutting the safety net, and allowing for states to change eligibility requirement to keep poor recipient's off the roles.

Even Paul Ryan admits his plan is supposed to enrich high end earners and pay for some of the lowering of taxes with the saving from shifting those costs from government to consumers. Premium support is but a voucher system that does not grow as premiums increase. Unlike the tax credits that grow in value with costs.

I have my issues with the ACA, mainly it exposes how few people are in the system as doctors, nurses, and technicians, and specialists, but I see it as 6 million jobs just opened up.

Unlike the republicans who still seek to reward job creators who have no need to create jobs to make profits.

I'm not talking about the law, I'm referring to the regulations that have been written - so far. As for the rest of your comments, it's a broken record. It has created jobs, though, tons more IRS agents.

And the Federal government is still hiring.. even at a time where other employees are getting furloughs.
Since Sequester Cuts Began, Federal Job Openings Have Jumped 2,600 - Investors.com (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/031213-647740-2600-federal-job-opened-since-sequestration.htm)

I'm not talking about the law, I'm referring to the regulations that have been written - so far. As for the rest of your comments, it's a broken record. It has created jobs, though, tons more IRS agents.

Have you been following the jobs numbers? Thousand of nursing students have been added to full time employment every month for the last 7.

Health Care Aside, Fewer Jobs Than in 2000 - NYTimes.com (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/health-care-aside-fewer-jobs-than-in-2000/)


In 2000, the economy had about 121 million non-health-care payroll jobs. Today, on a seasonally adjusted basis, there are 120 million non-health-care jobs. Meanwhile, the health care industry has added about 3.6 million jobs in that time frame, growing about 33 percent (14.5 million health care jobs today versus 10.9 million in 2000).

And what part of reforming the fee for service system, that's bankrupting us, to a fee per patient system that you don't understand?

Hello again, tal:


what part of reforming the fee for service system, that's bankrupting us, to a fee per patient system that you don't understand?I'm SURE that's what "patient centered" health care is all about.

Or maybe it isn't.. Does anybody know what that right wing gobbledy gook means?

Excon

Does anybody know what that right wing gobbledy gook means??

excon

Obviously not, gobbledy gook is not meant to be understood, nor it seems is the Obamacare legislation

Hello again, clete:

I was referring to the right wings answer to Obamacare, which is "patient centered healthcare". I was just wondering what THAT particular gobbeldy gook means. Do you know?

excon

What about supply of MD's? It is already and has been for a few years, a two month wait to see a specialist in my region. More folks will have access as they have some insurance coverage (and I honestly don't begrudge them that), many folks who have had no care for maybe years and have a lot of undiagnosed problems to catch up on, pre-existing clause folks now able to get new and old problems treated, patients added who were at lifetime maximum levels before, more college age patients eligible, general baby boomer increases etc. I haven't seen any discussion about where all the Dr's are going to come from. Maybe I missed something.

Hello again, tal:

I'm SURE that's what "patient centered" health care is all about.

Or maybe it isn't.. Does anybody know what that right wing gobbledy gook means??

excon

MO' Money for rich guys, higher costs for poor guys. That's what all their gobbledy goop always means. Thought you knew.


obviously not, gobbledy gook is not meant to be understood, nor it seems is the Obamacare legislation

The president may be long winded, and complex, but his plan is in writing and posted on the internet (for 4 years), and is open for challenge, debate, review, and revision if need be. Just because some are to lazy to read it, doesn't mean everyone is. Like I said 4 years??

What we have seen inacted so far, is popular, except by talking head republicans, and the lazy bast@rds that follow them.

MO' Money for rich guys, higher costs for poor guys. That's what all their gobbledy goop always means. Thought you knew.

So how many times today have you spewed that line in one form or another (so far)?


The president may be long winded, and complex, but his plan is in writing and posted on the internet (for 4 years), and is open for challenge, debate, review, and revision if need be. Just because some are to lazy to read it, doesn't mean everyone is. Like I said 4 years??

You be the first to explain all 20,000 pages of regulations (so far). Hell, just explain 10 of them.

Hello smear:


where all the Dr's are going to come from. Maybe I missed something.Where there's a demand, the market will fill it. Will these future doctors be able to make zillions like their predecessors did? No, and that's a GOOD thing. Will it keep people away from that profession? No.

Excon

So how many times today have you spewed that line in one form or another (so far)?



You be the first to explain all 20,000 pages of regulations (so far). Hell, just explain 10 of them.

Just because you can't see it, or agree with me doesn't mean I'm wrong, and I will try to answer all your reasonable questions concerning ACA, or point you to the answer and we can debate it. You don't have to translate pages, but interpret policy.

I have read all the republican proposals also, and funny how you accept gobbledy goop for facts. Ask me about that too!

How long before the standards get lowered because we need more doctors or have those efficiency targets to meet?

Hello smear:

Where there's a demand, the market will fill it. Will these future doctors be able to make zillions like their predecessors did? No, and that's a GOOD thing. Will it keep people away from that profession? No.

excon

You expect greedy supply siders to know about demand?? Otherwise you are spot on!

Just because you can't see it, or agree with me doesn't mean I'm wrong, and I will try to answer all your reasonable questions concerning ACA, or point you to the answer and we can debate it. You don't have to translate pages, but interpret policy.

I have read all the republican proposals also, and funny how you accept gobbledy goop for facts. Ask me about that too!

For the third time today, read the regulations, not the bill, not proposals - interpret the regulations for us. Good luck, the regs ARE the gobbledy gook.

Just ask the FDA, they can't even figure out how to implement one of those hidden things in Obamacare that had to be passed before we knew about it...


Diners will have to wait a little longer to find calorie counts on most restaurant chain menus, in supermarkets and on vending machines.

Writing a new menu labeling law "has gotten extremely thorny," (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CALORIES_ON_MENUS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-03-12-11-26-19) says the head of the Food and Drug Administration, as the agency tries to figure out who should be covered by it.

The 2010 health care law charged the FDA with requiring chain restaurants and other establishments that serve food to put calorie counts on menus and in vending machines. The agency issued a proposed rule in 2011, but the final rules have since been delayed as some of those non-restaurant establishments have lobbied hard to be exempt.

While the restaurant industry has signed on to the idea and helped to write the new regulations, supermarkets, convenience stores and other retailers that sell prepared food say they want no part of it.

"There are very, very strong opinions and powerful voices both on the consumer and public health side and on the industry side, and we have worked very hard to sort of figure out what really makes sense and also what is implementable," FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said in a recent interview with The Associated Press.

It's "thorny" because those folks you hate, corporations, signed on to have a competitive advantage over the little guy. It's one of those 'unintended' consequences your side either fails to foresee or actually intends. McDonald's can be on board because their menu doesn't change all that much and they can roll it out to thousands of stores at once no problem being the corporate giant they are. Not so much for the smaller players who will have to raise prices and have to pay for testing for every menu change. And in an industry where profit margins are small and restaurants are fighting for every customer who do you think is going to win?

What's so hard, and expensive about revealing the contents of the food you sell people? The money they are so willing to spend fighting such a disclosure, they could have saved and submitted their recipes it seems to me.

I mean didn't the fact that we are finding horse meat in our food give you a clue what's happening to what we eat? Don't you want to know what you are scarfing down?

I guess you don't so enjoy your cat/dog/rat tacos, and horse burgers.

Whats so hard, and expensive about revealing the contents of the food you sell people? The money they are sowilling to spend fighting such a disclosure, they could have saved and submitted their recipes it seems to me.

I mean didn't the fact that we are finding horse meat in our food give you a clue whats happening towhat we eat? Don't you wanna know what you are scarfing down?

I guess you don't so enjoy your cat/dog/rat tacos.

Wow, you just keep validating my point today. This time you're even willing to excuse a regulation that's only going to enrich the big corporations you just railed on while driving the little guy out of business.

So which is it, you really don't care if big business gets bigger or don't care about the little guy or both? Or do you just not get that the government driving up the cost of doing business is bad for the economy and big business is better able to compete in that atmosphere than mom & pop?

I got to hand it to you though, you're persistent in your fear mongering. Where exactly do they serve those cat/dog/rat tacos anyway?

Where exactly do they serve those cat/dog/rat tacos anyway?
Coming to your neighborhood soon.

Well all I have to say is that it's good that I rescued my dog before Obamacare .

Obamacare May Bite You At The Vet's Office « CBS Miami (http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/03/11/obamacare-may-bite-you-at-the-vets-office/)

Coming to your neighborhood soon.

We already have Taco Bell but I don't eat there.

We already have Taco Bell but I don't eat there.
So you haven't experienced their ground "meat"?

Even here in NY I wouldn't go the Taco Bell .There are plenty of authentic Mexican restaurants.

I don't believe I've had the displeasure, but at they're big enough to disclose (http://www.tacobell.com/nutrition) all that 'nutritional' stuff no problem.

What's so hard, and expensive about revealing the contents of the food you sell people? The money they are so willing to spend fighting such a disclosure, they could have saved and submitted their recipes it seems to me.

I mean didn't the fact that we are finding horse meat in our food give you a clue what's happening to what we eat? Don't you want to know what you are scarfing down?

I guess you don't so enjoy your cat/dog/rat tacos, and horse burgers.


but the final rules have since been delayed as some of those non-restaurant establishments have lobbied hard to be exempt.
Hmmm ,the mom and pop grocer who has to now figure out the calorie count on their fresh food and salad buffets . And if that calorie count isn't accurate ,having the FDA come in and raiding your establishment.. I can think of plenty of businesses that would have to close down due to that added expense.

I don't believe I've had the displeasure, but at they're big enough to disclose (http://www.tacobell.com/nutrition) all that 'nutritional' stuff no problem.

Yes ;as I've said often... The big corps can absorb the cost of regulation. The
1st generation immigrant who opened up a corner Mexican eatery ? Not so much . One of the biggest groups that sued Nanny Bloomy over the soft drink ban was associations of minority grocers (Korean-American Grocers Association of New York and the New York Statewide Coalition of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, the NAACP ) . The Dems should rename their party to the 'Party of Unintended Consequences '.

Yes ;as I've said often .... The big corps can absorb the cost of regulation. The
1st generation immigrant who opened up a corner Mexican eatery ? Not so much . One of the biggest groups that sued Nanny Bloomy over the soft drink ban was associations of minority grocers (Korean-American Grocers Association of New York and the New York Statewide Coalition of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, the NAACP ) . The Dems should rename their party to the 'Party of Unintended Consequences '.

The PUC, affectionately known as the 'puke' party.

well all I have to say is that it's good that I rescued my dog before Obamacare .

Obamacare May Bite You At The Vet’s Office « CBS Miami (http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/03/11/obamacare-may-bite-you-at-the-vets-office/)

LOL, they were going to raise prices anyway, like all the insurance companies and providers, and medical equipment manufactureres have been doing the last 10, 15, 30 years.

Without Obama Care, their prices were still going up.


I don't believe I've had the displeasure, but at they're big enough to disclose (http://www.tacobell.com/nutrition) all that 'nutritional' stuff no problem.

This is not an example of disclosure that's required, that's for the public. I happen to know a list of suppliers is all the government is asking of any business, big or small. A rotating small random sampling is all that's really looked at.

I do have a rather large recall list of suppliers to not only fast food outlets but large and small grocers as well.


Hmmm ,the mom and pop grocer who has to now figure out the calorie count on their fresh food and salad buffets . And if that calorie count aint accurate ,having the FDA come in and raiding your establishment .. I can think of plenty of businesses that would have to close down due to that added expense.

Can you give us an idea of those costs please?

Not true, calorie counts and such as the Taco Bell site listed are required, not a list of vendors.

Can you give us an idea of those costs please?
Think about it !
The FDA decided that, in addition to restaurants, the requirement would apply to coffee shops, delicatessens, take-out food, grocery stores, convenience stores, movie theaters, airplanes, cafeterias, bakeries and vending machines. I'm surprised they didn't add dirty water hot dog carts .

The FDA estimates that the initial mean cost of complying with the proposed regulations is $315.1 million, with an estimated mean ongoing cost of $44.2 million per year. The FDA did not estimate the benefits of the proposed regulations...

“The unnecessarily burdensome menu labeling rule is going to impose a billion dollar burden on retailers. In an industry operating on a 1 percent profit margin, this financial load will mean the loss of jobs and an unnecessary increase to consumers' grocery bill,” Lieberman said...

The restaurant menu labeling regulation keeps our members up at night because it will hinder their businesses and impede innovation,” said Lieberman. “The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) identifies the restaurant menu labeling provision as the third most burdensome regulation, and FDA hasn't been able to quantify a single benefit, even though food retailers can clearly add up the costs impacting their businesses.”
Restaurants Prepare for Cost of New Menus Mandated by Obamacare | Heartlander Magazine (http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/02/21/restaurants-prepare-cost-new-menus-mandated-obamacare)

Even the Obots didn't know what was going down .Nancy-Ann Deparle, President Obama's chief health adviser complained to the FDA about it ;so they took the requirement away from movies and airlines... Thanks a lot ! Again ,relatively large businesses who can absorb the cost got taken off the list . But the struggling bodega ? Forgetaboutit!!

The only thing worse than you not knowing what you eat, is the people serving you not knowing what they are feeding you. And after all the food recalls, you still can't think of ONE reason why knowing what you eat is a good idea?

I know, that customer put the roach in the burger to get a free MEAL.

The only thing worse than you not knowing what you eat, is the people serving you not knowing what they are feeding you. And after all the food recalls, you still can't think of ONE reason why knowing what you eat is a good idea?

I know, that customer put the roach in the burger to get a free MEAL.

What's even worse is getting to choose from Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and Long John Silvers for date night because all the good restaurants are gone. Oh I forget, you can still go have a giant bucket of artery clogging popcorn, a jumbo size candy bar and a mystery meat hot dog at the movies.

We've not been told even a hint of the truth on the Dems plans for helath care from the beginning other than a few candid moments that slipped, like we have to pass it to know what's in it. Robert Reich was candid (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574473331382043514.html) back in 2007 and I might say, prescient:

[/B]

This article is misleading.

Before 1971 all proposals for universal health care were based on private sector financing and be privately administered.

Reiche's speech would be based in light of the current politics of health care.

There is no reference to any particular type of president. "What would A candidate for president say...."

There is no prescient. He was talking about health care politics of the day.

"We are the only health care system in the world...."

Tut

Come to Dallas, you can fine dine and wine every night of the week, at a different restaurant. They aren't going anywhere. Mismanagement is the biggest cause of business failure, not regulations.

This article is misleading.

Before 1971 all proposals for universal health care were based on private sector financing and be privately administered.

Reiche's speech would be based in light of the current politics of health care.

I don't know what 1971 has to do with anything, he gave the speech in 2007.

Come to Dallas, you can fine dine and wine every night of the week, at a different restaurant. They aren't going anywhere. Mismanagement is the biggest cause of business failure, not regulations.

I always knew you really weren't for the little guy.

I don't know what 1971 has to do with anything, he gave the speech in 2007.

My apologies.

07 is not 70 or 71

Tut

My apologies.

07 is not 70 or 71

Tut

No problem. Take care.

Intended or unintended consequence of Obamacare?


Opinion - The Doctor Won't See You Now. He's Clocked Out (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323628804578346614033833092.html?m od=rss_opinion_main)
ObamaCare is pushing physicians into becoming hospital employees. The results aren't encouraging.

By SCOTT GOTTLIEB

Big government likes big providers. That's why ObamaCare is gradually making the local doctor-owned medical practice a relic. In the not too distant future, most physicians will be hourly wage earners, likely employed by a hospital chain.

Why? Because when doctors practice in small offices, it is hard for Washington to regulate what they do. There are too many of them, and the government is too remote. It is far easier for federal agencies to regulate physicians if they work for big hospitals. So ObamaCare shifts money to favor the delivery of outpatient care through hospital-owned networks.

The irony is that in the name of lowering costs, ObamaCare will almost certainly make the practice of medicine more expensive. It turns out that when doctors become salaried hospital employees, their overall productivity falls.

ObamaCare's main vehicle for ending the autonomous, private delivery of medicine is the hospital-owned "accountable care organization." The idea is to turn doctors into hospital employees and pay them flat rates that uncouple their income from how much care they deliver. (Ending the fee-for-service payment model is supposed to eliminate doctors' financial incentives to perform extraneous procedures.)The Obama administration also imposes new costs on physicians who remain independent—for example, mandating that all medical offices install expensive information-technology systems.

The result? It is estimated that by next year, about 50% of U.S. doctors will be working for a hospital or hospital-owned health system. A recent survey by the Medical Group Management Association shows a nearly 75% increase in the number of active doctors employed by hospitals or hospital systems since 2000, reflecting a trend that sharply accelerated around the time that ObamaCare was enacted. The biggest shifts are in specialties such as cardiology and oncology.

Estimates by hospitals that acquire medical practices and institutions that track these trends such as the Medical Group Management Association show that physician productivity falls under these arrangements, sometimes by more than 25% (more on this below). The lost productivity isn't just a measure of the fewer back surgeries or cardiac catheterizations performed once physicians are no longer paid per procedure, as ObamaCare envisions. Rather, the lost productivity is a consequence of the more fragmented, less accountable care that results from these schemes.

“So let me begin by saying this: I know that there are millions of Americans who are content with their health care coverage – they like their plan and they value their relationship with their doctor. And that means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period." -Barack Obama

Unless he's off the clock...

Hello again, Steve:

While solving the only crisis that matters, RISING health care costs, there's going to be some disruptions. One of them may very well be the doctor who'll no longer be able to get obscenely rich. So, if your guy wants to go "off the clock" there'll be plenty of newcomers willing to fill his space.

The other thing you guys DON'T get is, the ACA is the law of the land. It'll NEVER get repealed... You LOST an election over it. What about that ISN'T sinking in?

excon

Most of the facts are correct but the concluson is not. Buying the "private practices" of doctors especially by not for profit hospitals has been going on for a while and is a lucrative revenue stream for the hopitals.

Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2136864,00.html)

Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us | TIME.com (http://healthland.time.com/why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/)

Its an eye opener.

Hello again, Steve:

While solving the only crisis that matters, RISING health care costs, there's going to be some disruptions. One of them may very well be the doctor who'll no longer be able to get obscenely rich. So, if your guy wants to go "off the clock" there'll be plenty of newcomers willing to fill his space.

The other thing you guys DON'T get is, the ACA is the law of the land. It'll NEVER get repealed... You LOST an election over it. What about that ISN'T sinking in?

excon

Right, Obamacare will prevent doctors from getting obscenely rich and shift it to big health care corporations getting obscenely rich.

Ex,

First, hold off the rightwinger attack on me cause I ain't one.
I want Obamacare to work, but I try to base my predictions on facts, not hope.
When I questioned earlier where all the Dr's are coming from, you said that they will appear because of the demand. But the demand for Dr's in my region has been high for at least 7 years (and possibly longer, I base 7 years on when I needed one)--- and the Dr's haven't been magically arriving in droves around here.
Where are the Dr's who will "if you build it, they will come" come from? Have medical schools been training larger numbers of Dr's for the past 6 or 8 years, so that they will be arriving on the scene now and in the near future - or what?
You imply that they are waiting in the wings and that when a big need arises that they will come begging for the jobs. I haven't seen that happening so far.

Democrat policy is largely based on wishful thinking.

Hope is not a strategy.

No, it's a campaign slogan.

Hello again, wingers - and you too smear:

First off, Obamacare isn't even fully implemented yet. Secondly, it's only the FIRST attempt. It'll NEED revision. It doesn't address rising costs. We've ONLY just begun this process. It's going to take a few years to get it right.

It IS a bummer that we're in the middle of this upheaval, but I believe that we WILL solve it once and for all, and for all time.. The problem isn't Medicare. It's rising health care costs. If we FIX that, Medicare will be solvent, and I believe we WILL.

The difference between us, is I'm just looking wayyy down the pike.

What I DO know, is that we'll NEVER go back to a time when people died because they had no insurance and/or went bankrupt because they were sick.

excon