George Will (May 2 column)says that the Supreme Court will have no choice but to declare the ACA unconstitutional if another challenge comes to them--if I read his latest column accurately.
And he also says (I think) that their previous ruling that the ACA was not a mandate that citizens must buy health insurance, but that it was actually a tax, will be a major factor in their next decision.

Is the ACA dead on arrival the next time it comes before the Supreme Court?

George F. Will: The next Affordable Care Act challenge - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-the-next-affordable-care-act-challenge/2014/05/02/c0150da8-d159-11e3-a6b1-45c4dffb85a6_story.html)

(Article exceeds allowable number of characters. I tried to chop it down to a few quotes but I can't do it justice. Not really that long, actually)

Oh I certainly hope its ruled unconstitutional. Its been a world class circle jerk since it was written behind closed doors by the democrats alone and rammed through without a real vote like any legitimate legislation would be.

The frightening part is that when it finally does get thrown out, for whatever reason, Big Insurance will be ready to totally screw over their customers. Many have speculated that this is what Jarret and Reid are counting on so they can "solve" the "problem" with Government paid/run healthcare. Can you say Medicaid metastasized?

An the alternative is..?

Just wondering if there is any substance to Will's analysis. Tal, are you saying that the end justifies the means in this case. Facts and procedures don't matter?
Has anyone read the column or just already back to the standard political bashing. My question was- if Will is correct can the ACA survive another Supreme Court challenge?

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act)

Here is the blow by by blow details, you tell me and then you judge is G. Will calling foul a valid one, or an opposition to something republicans tried to stop, failed, and continue to oppose. You must also consider that Bush passed his tax cuts under the same rules of reconciliation as the ACA was passed. Repubs had control of the 3 branches of government, we got tax cuts, Dems had control, we got ACA.

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

Best I can tell you is when SCOTUS get the case, they will rule, and we will see. But reconciliation is and has been a tool for decades now. Will and republicans have some high hopes since they have voted more than 50 times for repeal. But his OPINION, is subject to scrutiny by the law. I have serious doubts this latest attempt will be any more successful than the ones before it.

Good answer tal.

Will says:
"In October 2009, the House passed a bill (http://www.pacificlegal.org/old-site/document.doc?id=691) that would have modified a tax credit for members of the armed forces and some other federal employees who were first-time home buyers — a bill that had nothing to do with health care. Two months later the Senate “amended” this bill by obliterating it. The Senate renamed it and completely erased its contents, replacing them with the ACA's contents (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr3590/text).

Case law establishes that for a Senate action to qualify as a genuine “amendment” to a House-passed revenue bill, it must be “germane to the subject matter of the [House] bill.” The Senate's shell game — gutting and replacing the House bill — created the ACA from scratch. The ACA obviously flunks the germaneness test, without which the House's constitutional power of originating revenue bills would be nullified. "

Will says it is not germane because the Senate replaced a tax credit bill with a healthcare bill. But since the penalty was deemed to be a tax, maybe it can be argued that it is germane to the house bill. And if Will's opinion is that a revenue bill must originate in the house, Roberts could have used his determination that the penalty was a tax, to rule the other way--that is he could have supplied the deciding vote to shoot it down instead of letting it survive. Nothing has changed since the earlier affirmative decision so Roberts would have to say, "Wow, I should have thought of that when I deemed it a tax." (or not)

Also Will said "If the president wants to witness a refutation of his assertion that the survival of the Affordable Care Act is assured, come Thursday he should stroll the 13 blocks from his office to the nation's second-most important court, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. There he can hear an argument involving yet another constitutional provision that evidently has escaped his notice. It is the origination clause (http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#%21/articles/1/essays/30/origination-clause), which says: “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.”

There again. why couldn't the Supreme Court have killed the ACA based on the origination clause the first time around? Nothing has changed since that time. To rule the other way in the new case (if it ever arrives or ever gets another look), would appear to be an admission that the first ruling was a mistake, seems to me. Or do they say- we never looked at it from the standpoint of the origination clause- because it was not presented to us based on the origination clause, and it had never been determined to be a tax until the first ruling came down.

That's a very narrow view of the reconciliation process by Will, and the flaw is the senate can change any bill the house proposes, and send it back to the house to either accept or reject those changes, and the ACA involved changes to the tax code to allow for immediate tax credits for insurance buyers, as well as the (added as an amendment) the original house language of the initially already passed in the house.

Yes the senate added a lot of stuff to a simple bill, originated in the house, but that's procedure, and repubs were helpless to stop it because they lost the ability to filibuster a spending/tax cut bill in the senate. It is unclear whether Repub can chip away at the law enough to render it useless, but they have been unsuccessfully trying, and no doubt will find another way having failed in SCOTUS already and 50 repeal votes. Do you really think Robert will overturn himself? Or the repubs will prevail in the district court? Despite Wills opinion (and repub hopes), this is hardly a slam dunk, far from it.

If they take the senate in the fall, and keep the house, no doubt another repeal vote will be taken in both chambers but then the question becomes, will they have enough votes to override a presidential veto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act


On November 7, the House of Representatives passed the Affordable Health Care for America Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Health_Care_for_America_Act) on a 220–215 vote and forwarded it to the Senate for passage.[72] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#cite_no te-reuterstimeline-72)

The House passed the Senate bill with a 219–212 vote on March 21, 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it.[120] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#cite_no te-USH_RC_2010-165-120) The following day, Republicans introduced legislation to repeal the bill.[121] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#cite_no te-PelosiSawyer-121) Obama signed the ACA into law on March 23, 2010.[122] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#cite_no te-122) The amendment bill, The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, was also passed by the House on March 21, by the Senate via reconciliation on March 25, and was signed by President Obama on March 30.

don't let the facts get in the way of a good story

I guess that Roberts would say that the appeal to the SC the first time was based on the individual mandate, and that they had no reason (or jurisdiction?) to look at the origination clause, and that it had not yet been declared a tax and not a penalty/mandate. Allowing these vital issues to come down to the way that one individual (out of 315 million citizens) votes, is a huge flaw in the way we are governed in my humble opinion. But so is a legislative body that is gridlocked.

Desperation and obstinance often results in grasping at straws. As in shutting down the government unless the ACA was repealed.

Desperation is those that insist of forcing something on the American people that an overwhelming majority do not want. And was rammed through without a proper vote like any real legislation would have been.

Desperation is those that insist of forcing something on the American people that an overwhelming majority do not want. And was rammed through without a proper vote like any real legislation would have been.

An opinion not based in facts and more illustrative of losers sour grapes than debate of the issue.

An opinion not based in facts and more illustrative of losers sour grapes than debate of the issue.
Something proven by facts...

It was rammed through as a financial reconciliation... or it would have required another Senate vote which there was not enough votes for after Scott Brown won his seat based on his opposition.

Besides tha fact non-partisan polls have should support for that are even lower than Obamas own numbers which are in the pathetic range.

You misinterpret the polls. The ACA is more popular than Obamacare. The sky didn't fall, the world didn't end. Wait until the 5 million uninsured in red states find out they are getting screwed by their elected representatives.

The case that Will referred to: Case | Tax-raising Affordable Care Act started in wrong house of Congress - Pacific Legal Foundation (http://www.pacificlegal.org/cases/Sissel-3-1374)

[Quote]
Tax-raising Affordable Care Act started in wrong house of Congress Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services Contact: Paul J. Beard II ([email protected])or Timothy Sandefur (http://www.pacificlegal.org/staff/Timothy-Sandefur)
([email protected])
Status: Plaintiff appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Apppeals on Jul. 5, 2013. Briefing completed Dec. 20, 2013. Oral argument scheduled for May 8, 2014.
Summary:
Pacific Legal Foundation has launched a new constitutional cause of action against the federal Affordable Care Act. The ACA imposes a charge on Americans who fail to buy health insurance — a charge that the U.S. Supreme Court recently characterized as a federal tax. PLF's amended complaint alleges that this purported tax is illegal because it was introduced in the Senate rather than the House, as required by the Constitution's Origination Clause for new revenue-raising bills (Article I, Section 7).

The Origination Clause argument is part of an amended complaint filed in PLF's existing lawsuit against the ACA, Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, pending before Judge Beryl A. Howell, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. PLF's Sissel lawsuit was on hold while the U.S. Supreme Court considered the challenge to the ACA from the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) and 26 states, in NFIB v. Sebelius. As initially filed, PLF's Sissel lawsuit targeted the ACA's individual mandate to buy health insurance as a violation of the Constitution's Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8).

The Supreme Court agreed with this position, in the NFIB ruling
However, Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by four justices, characterized the ACA's charge as a federal “tax,” because it requires a payment to the federal government from people who decide not to buy health insurance.
That holding prompted PLF's new cause of action. “If the charge for not buying insurance is seen as a federal tax, then a new question must be asked,” said PLF Principal Attorney Paul J. Beard II. “When lawmakers passed the ACA, with all of its taxes, did they follow the Constitution's procedures for revenue increases? The Supreme Court wasn't asked and didn't address this question in the NFIB case. The question of whether the Constitution was obeyed needs to be litigated, and PLF is determined to see this important issue all the way through the courts.”

[Unquote] Videos (2) not included in article quote.

Chief Justice Roberts ruled that the mandates were not penalties but taxes. Will has a point in that all revenue bills must originate in the House .Obamacare originated in the Senate.They creatively replaced an entire text of a bill the House had passed months earlier on a different subject; stripped it of it's language ,and replaced it with language the Senate concocted . No one could read the original House bill and come to the conclusion that it had anything to do with health care .

However .. Roberts also did some creative interpretation of the law and the constitution to define the mandates as taxes in the 1st place. I don't trust him to do the right thing this time either . The Senate 'deemed 'the passing of the law ,and the Roberts Court 'deemed ' it constitutional . (yes the reconciliation process was also violated by the Senate ) .
As for George Will..... he's a little late to the game ,as is this suit. The possibility that the origination clause was violated was brought up here before Obamacare became law. But back then ,George Will was still enamored with the emperor and the creases in his pants.

My bolding and underlining.


"In October 2009, the House passed a bill (http://www.pacificlegal.org/old-site/document.doc?id=691) that would have modified a tax credit for members of the armed forces and some other federal employees who were first-time home buyers —..."

"What will be argued on Thursday is that what was voted on — the ACA — was indisputably a revenue measure and unquestionably did not originate in the House, which later passed the ACA on another party-line vote."

House Tax Credit = Senate Revenue Measure/Tax = Germane ? Arguing indisputably that ACA is a revenue measure. Not arguing that it is a healthcare bill.

You misinterpret the polls. The ACA is more popular than Obamacare. The sky didn't fall, the world didn't end. Wait until the 5 million uninsured in red states find out they are getting screwed by their elected representatives.


Really... when did they pass a second one... because ACA actually IS OBAMACARE. And was since day one. They are one in the same. Its a big steaming pile of manure no matter what you call it. You can't polish a turd.

Also....most of those people that signed up are STILL uninsured because very few of them actually paid a dime towards it yet. And until they do....they aren't covered.

Send the uninsured back to Mexico and El Salvador ....because they are illegal to begin with.

And as far as the sky not falling? Tell that to the millions of people who have had their hours cut to less than 30 per week and their insurance benefits cut by their employers because of Obama making it too expensive for them.

Obamacare condensed into 4 simple sentences......
In order to insure the uninsured, we first have to un-insure the insured.
Next, we require the newly un-insured to be re-insured.
To re-insure the newly un-insured, they are required to pay extra charges to be re-insured.
The extra charges are required so that the original insured, who became
un-insured, and then became re-insured, can pay enough extra so that the original
un-insured can be insured, free of charge to them.

now I know why you are in decline, it has become clear, you can no longer do anything simply

We aren't in decline Clete, just at a war of words, and ideas.

it's more than that Tal it is a war of inaction and when you do nothing long enough..............

Relax Clete,the war is almost over. Just takes a few election cycles to flush down the BS!

We aren't in decline

When the SWAT team comes to knock in your door looking for a pressure cooker, say that again.

You should do something about those brain farts, tin foil may help. :D

I haven't seen anything IMPROVE in the last 6.5 years. And I actually live in one of if not the the least affected areas of the country.

May I suggest glasses... and a tin foil hat? :D

did you say you lived in a pressure cooker smoothy? No amount of tin foil is going to help, there is only one thing that will and you ain't goin to do that

Washington DC area is the least affected area when it comes to economic downturns... due to the nature of most of the work around here. And there is a 25% REDUCTION in the last year on Federal related contracts... which are not directly tied to economy... which sucks in itself... record numbers of people not working still, 30+ year low point in the labor participation rate, record numbers of people on food stamps, welfare and disability...

Unemployment rates that have not been lower than they were 7 years ago...

THe people wearing the tin foil hats are those that believe its great out there... because nobody that actually have jobs think its all that good. Obama might actually believe it is... but then its also obvious he has been completely out of touch with reality for a lot of years.

Washington DC area is the least affected area when it comes to economic downturns... due to the nature of most of the work around here. And there is a 25% REDUCTION in the last year on Federal related contracts... which are not directly tied to economy... which sucks in itself... record numbers of people not working still, 30+ year low point in the labor participation rate, record numbers of people on food stamps, welfare and disability...

Unemployment rates that have not been lower than they were 7 years ago...

THe people wearing the tin foil hats are those that believe its great out there... because nobody that actually have jobs think its all that good. Obama might actually believe it is... but then its also obvious he has been completely out of touch with reality for a lot of years.

If you take a look at those statistics you will find participation is around the long term average, it jumped when women entered the workforce in large numbers and has fallen back so you can't blame Obama. The participate rate is one of the lies of statistics, you need to look at how many jobs there actually are and vacancies to make sense of it. These statistics are difficult to find because the focus is on unemployment. The baby boomers are beginning to retire so it stands to reason the participation rate will fall over time

If you take a look at those statistics you will find participation is around the long term average, it jumped when women entered the workforce in large numbers and has fallen back so you can't blame Obama. The participate rate is one of the lies of statistics, you need to look at how many jobs there actually are and vacancies to make sense of it. These statistics are difficult to find because the focus is on unemployment. The baby boomers are beginning to retire so it stands to reason the participation rate will fall over time
I've read the labor participation ratestatistics, They haven't been as low as they are since the Jimmy Carter Administration... when hyperinflation made two income households a neccessity, rather than the exception. THey have been anything BUT steady in the last 35 years.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/01/LFP%20Participation.jpg


http://media.ycharts.com/charts/201961b38eed3f7da04a1f3982f2d45c.png

Such statistics are worthless without comparing them with other statistics, including productivity, imports, wages growth.

I didn't suggest they were steady I said they have fallen back to the long term average and there are a lot of factors as to why they have come off the all time high and job availability is a major one, all that exporting jobs has to have an impact sometime, you can't have it both ways and that is one you can't hang on Obama, you need to hang that one on NAFTA, Wasn't it George H. W. who signed that one and the greed that saw jobs exported to China and Korea.

recovery has been slow, not Obama's fault, but the fault of the greedy who won't invest

These labor force participation rates are abolute numbers... X percent of something is still X percent of something irrespective of any other figures.

Quality of life statictics ARE something dependent on other factors.... but the labor force participation rate is what percentage of the adult population actually have jobs, vs those who don't. It doesn't factor in other variables.

That's the problem with it, compare the participation rate with the available jobs or people employed and certainly with GDP. Absolute measures are only good for point scoring, they ignore underlying factors.

It's like the polls, which measure what, popularity?

That's the problem with it, compare the participation rate with the available jobs or people employed and certainly with GDP. Absolute measures are only good for point scoring, they ignore underlying factors.

It's like the polls, which measure what, popularity?

No, polls are routinely skewed by the people that creat them. And absolute figure isn't open to interpretation... it is what it is. Problem is many statistics ARE dependent on other variables... and are crafted to skew reality to fit a narrative.

Like the unemployment figures tossed around by the media and the government (the ones that make them look better). Using those of the USA because I know them best... the U-6 is the only true unadaulterated Unemployment number but its rarely referred to... because it shows a much higher number.

THe one brandished around effectively only counts people who are eligible for unemployment benefits.. self employed, Contractors, business owners that go out of business... some people that are fire, and most of those who quit their jobs, and those whoes benefits run out before they find a job... are never counted, yet are still unemployed. They are excluded because they aren't elligible to collect unemployment benifits...so you can see from the numbers in the chart how significant a percentage they are that are being ignored.

Look at the wide range of numbers... for any given period....by the same compiling agency.

Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm)

I keep telling you statistics are lies the tools of those who want to decieve. long term trend is the only reliable indicator and then you must have a clear idea of what is going on. I don't believe anyone when they tell me the economy is up or scewed for this or that reason, what I know is over the long term things will improve and no amount of debate will make any difference so stop the BS

I keep telling you statistics are lies the tools of those who want to decieve. long term trend is the only reliable indicator and then you must have a clear idea of what is going on. I don't believe anyone when they tell me the economy is up or scewed for this or that reason, what I know is over the long term things will improve and no amount of debate will make any difference so stop the BS


So I should just take your word that things have improved because you say so and because Obama says so or anyone else says so? Despite the fact there exisits NO evidence that there has been a trend of improvement over the last 6 years?

The U-6 number I reffer to is fact... because there are no filters used on that number. It is what it is... everyone is counted... nobody is ignored or discounted. Its totally objective, unlike all the others That makes it reliable. Far more reliable than someone's "feeling", or anyone's propaganda. And why polititions go out of their way to avoid it.

Whether seasonally adjusted or not, your data shows a drop i unemployment. Small but a decrease none the less.


NOTE: Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

Too many variables not explained, for instance, what the hell are job market related reasons, and discouraged workers? Could this be a regional or location that is harder hit, rural or suburban? Household dynamics, age ranges are also excluded and the biggest question marks is the students at home not working, and the aged,or even retirees, or the newly disabled. In other words, its too road to paint a very clear picture, or an accurate one.

To be fair though, Smoothy, you used the same numbers I do, (BLS) but you have to look at the whole thing and see the slight uptick across the board that breaks the numbers down, positive but small to be sure.

Employment Situation (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.toc.htm)

Helpful to look at individual states and how they are performing some great Minnesota, some NOT, Kansas. Locality, and governess is the whole key here, as well as industry.

Economic Outlooks by State, 2014-Kiplinger (http://www.kiplinger.com/article/business/T019-C000-S005-economic-outlooks-by-state-2014.html)

Take it any way you want but slow growth is better than none, or worse shrinkage. You must be one of those glass half empty guys.

When job growth numbers are lower than the population growth... its actually still a negative number, calling it a positive is spinning it. Because the net number will still be fewer and fewer people with jobs. It would have to EXCEDE the population growth to truly be a positive number.

It certainly IS a glass half epty situation when the water is leaking out of the bottom faster than you can pour it in.

Tell your congressman to invest in jobs projects and not just hand over loot to job creators who ain't creating jobs. Makes no sense to give a rich guy tax free land, build him a road and parking lot and he uses workers who need welfare, to sell stuff his out of country third world workers to make while he rakes in billions, that he hides in some other country.

At least make those fat rich guys build a roads, fix bridges.

as has already been pointed out , people who have stopped looking for work are not counted in the unemployment figures..... nor have we ever seen the job growth exceed the replacement rate. In reality we need 545,551 jobs created per month just to maintain the real unemployment rate ....something we have not come close to during the so called ObamaRecovery .

Tell your congressman to invest in jobs projects and not just hand over loot to job creators who ain't creating jobs. Makes no sense to give a rich guy tax free land, build him a road and parking lot and he uses workers who need welfare, to sell stuff his out of country third world workers to make while he rakes in billions, that he hides in some other country.

At least make those fat rich guys build a roads, fix bridges.Give it to a rich man he invests it and creates value... give it to a welfare bum and they waste it on drugs, hookers and booze. Nothing of value is created.

Give it to a rich man he invests it and creates value... give it to a welfare bum and they waste it on drugs, hookers and booze. Nothing of value is created.
He creates value only for himself. And not everyone receiving welfare is a bum.

He creates value only for himself. And not everyone receiving welfare is a bum.

How many welfare recipients own businesses that hire people and create jobs?

How many rich people... except the Kennedy's and a few others... DON'T own businesses that hire people and create jobs?

How many welfare recipients own businesses that hire people and create jobs?I guess it would be nice if life were as simple as you attempt to make it, but it isn't, neither are the solutions to problems. When you view everything in a binary way (black/white, right/wrong) you end up where you are: hatred for a large part of the your fellow humans since only a very small percentage fit into your "acceptable' mold.

How many rich people... except the Kennedy's and a few others... DON'T own businesses that hire people and create jobs?

Look at the White House guest list and the Democrat donors list for the answer to this question. The stereotype of the rich guy that only hoards his wealth and stole it in the first place is drawn from the LEFT.

The stereotype of the rich guy that only hoards his wealth and stole it in the first place is drawn from the LEFT.If you think that what 50% of americans think then you live in a dream world.

How many welfare recipients own businesses that hire people and create jobs?
And create as few low-paying jobs as they get away with.

And create as few low-paying jobs as they get away with.

If those jobs were underpaid... they would find nobody willing to work for them. If these "low paid people" had any talent, why don't they start their own businesses, AND pay higher than market rate wages? THe answer it they can't....they don't have the skills, and if they did, they would be out of business within the month.

A high school dropout with ZERO specific job skills is simply not worth $40,000 a year in any world.

Any job you could train almost any person you pulled off the street to do in 10 minuites time... isn't worth much in the way of pay, because they don't offer a value worth the money.

If those jobs were underpaid... they would find nobody willing to work for them.Correct... in America. See "Mitt Romney"

Correct... in America. See "Mitt Romney"


It's correct anywhere... would you work for one place (assuming its not a family business and you aren't their kid) if another business down the street would pay you more to do the same job? Darn right you would leave... and so would everyone else. Result... no employees. That's how the free market works. Thats how you climb the ladder.

It's correct anywhere.Wrong. See Ethiopia, India, China, etc...

Wrong. See Ethiopia, India, China, etc...
So... they are actually slaves forced to work at gunpoint there? Or are there just far more unskilled workers there than availible jobs because they breed like rabbits? THat means there are plenty of job opportunities there for all the poor people to create all these good paying jobs we keep hearing about the poor creating. Why aren't they doing it?

smoothy you know the poor would like to create jobs, but they have a big drawback and it isn't related to skill, it is related to capital. Without capital even the skilled among them can't get off the ground. Let's take the example of a friend of mine, a trained horticulturist, you would expect there might be jobs for such as he, but very few, so what does he need to get started ~ he needs land, sheds, pots, in other words, he has skill but requires capital. He can make a few dollars from a backyard operation but beyond that............. he gets plenty of offers from people who want him to grow the wrong thing

smoothy you know the poor would like to create jobs, but they have a big drawback and it isn't related to skill, it is related to capital. Without capital even the skilled among them can't get off the ground. Let's take the example of a friend of mine, a trained horticulturist, you would expect there might be jobs for such as he, but very few, so what does he need to get started ~ he needs land, sheds, pots, in other words, he has skill but requires capital. He can make a few dollars from a backyard operation but beyond that............. he gets plenty of offers from people who want him to grow the wrong thing
But that's not what the left claims... they say the rich don't create any jobs, the poor do... they can't have it both ways...

different theory, the poor "create" jobs because they spend their entire income, however the effect is somewhat indirect as work isn't necessarily created where it is needed. The 1% create jobs by investing but when you can get better returns by investing in stocks why would you risk startup capital. I don't believe wages are a real barrier, it is regulation that restricts investment

different theory, the poor "create" jobs because they spend their entire income, however the effect is somewhat indirect as work isn't necessarily created where it is needed. The 1% create jobs by investing but when you can get better returns by investing in stocks why would you risk startup capital. I don't believe wages are a real barrier, it is regulation that restricts investment
Its not the 1% that invest... but most people that are working towards a retirement. With us in the USA its called the 401K plan... your employer matches what you put into it up to a certain limit. THe best returns are in stocks or funds that diversify in the stock market. THose are prtable tot eh mext employers plan.

Very few employers still have defined pension plans.

The retirement myth – 1 out of 3 Americans has no savings or retirement account. Half of Americans have $2,000 or less in their retirement account. 401k new name for Wall Street grease. (http://www.mybudget360.com/retirement-myth-401k-myth-wall-street-putting-middle-class-retirement-at-risk-social-security-stopgap/)

smoothy you know the poor would like to create jobs, but they have a big drawback and it isn't related to skill, it is related to capital. Without capital even the skilled among them can't get off the ground. Let's take the example of a friend of mine, a trained horticulturist, you would expect there might be jobs for such as he, but very few, so what does he need to get started ~ he needs land, sheds, pots, in other words, he has skill but requires capital. He can make a few dollars from a backyard operation but beyond that............. he gets plenty of offers from people who want him to grow the wrong thing



Maybe what your freind needs is a better attitude and a life adjustment to work towards his/her goal. There are plenty of people here that cut grass and have turned it into gardening / landscaping businesses. They didnt do it overnight but they did struggle through it and keep one eye on the prize. It can be done.

The retirement myth – 1 out of 3 Americans has no savings or retirement account. Half of Americans have $2,000 or less in their retirement account. 401k new name for Wall Street grease. (http://www.mybudget360.com/retirement-myth-401k-myth-wall-street-putting-middle-class-retirement-at-risk-social-security-stopgap/)


The stupid people spend every dime they make.

I was taught my entire life... if you only get a dollar, you put at least $0.10 away for the future. You never spend everything you make. And that was from someone who actually knew what it was like to really be poor... not someone that just likes to think they are.

I can say that because I was one of those stupid people my first few years out of college....then I finally came to understand the lessons I was taught growing up.

You make do with at most 80% of your income....you put 20% in the bank.....you learn to live on that....and make any cuts you need to do it.

99% of the people that claim they can't afford to save money, have it to eat out, have iPhones with data plans for everyone in the house, Large screen TV, Xbox or Playstation, smoke....they have plenty of unneccessary expenses they CAN cut.

yes there are plenty of unnecessary expenses and there are some people who can do a lot with a little, but when you have had the guts kicked out of you a few times it is hard to stay positive, so don't get down on the poor for lack of initiative get down on those who could create opportunities and don't and smoothy, your 401k is great for those who have a job, we have a plan where the employer contributes 9% of your earnings but it actually has come out of wage rises foregone. it only works for those in permanent employment, a dying breed in a fast moving economy and they are now saying it needs to be lifted to 15% to be enough. If only we could get a situation where big losses don't occur every few years.

What I found is that once I got out of the system I could live on about 25% of my former earnings. The system is stacked against the poor because they can't achieve that

Maybe what your freind needs is a better attitude and a life adjustment to work towards his/her goal. There are plenty of people here that cut grass and have turned it into gardening / landscaping businesses. They didnt do it overnight but they did struggle through it and keep one eye on the prize. It can be done.
and the emperor chimes in ......"you didn't build that business on your own " .

Without capital even the skilled among them can't get off the ground.

Which is precisely what the Progressives detest. They have been trying to assign ALL capital to the government so they can fulfill their dream of being Solyndra owners whom the government gives the capital to and expects good intentions in return.

What sort of B/S is that that you decry assistence to enterprise just because it failed. Maybe one in a hundred startups makes it and sometimes an idea isn't as good as it seems, where is the Sarich rotary engine today? Buried by Detroit hyprocacy and the mad idea of a hybrid car. Solar has become possible because the Chinese found a way to make cells cheaply. still a long way to go though. Why doesn't a bigger and better shuttle fly today, because of penny pinching, petty frogging officialdom

assistence to enterprise

Is that how it looked from outside? Interesting. From here it looked like a political donor raked in a wad of cash despite everybody in the business saying the company was a bust.
Obama Team Backed $535 Million Solyndra Aid as Auditor Warned on Finances - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-12/obama-team-backed-535-million-solyndra-aid-as-auditor-warned-on-finances.html)

There is supposed to be protections and due diligence, the buck might stop at the top but the error lies elsewhere

I don't think you were around the forum when we debated Solyndra before, but it goes well beyond right wing holler points so let me catch you up, since you don't want to search for facts yourself.

How Solyndra's Failure Promises a Brighter Future for Solar Power - Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-solyndras-failure-helps-future-of-solar-power/)


In essence, China has been loaning Chinese solar module manufacturers in that country money at low-interest rates for both production and installation, even when installation takes place in other countries such as Germany, which makes Chinese products unbeatably cheap (http://www.good.is/post/the-good-100-chinese-solar/) when paired with Chinese advantages in labor and logistics costs. "The cost of financing for U.S. and [European Union] production accounts for one third of the cost per kilowatt-hour," Fthenakis notes. In other words, easy financing makes China-made solar cells much cheaper (http://www.good.is/post/the-good-100-chinese-solar/) than those from manufacturers who must pay interest on any money borrowed to build factories or install modules. "I would have more confidence in the U.S. solar industry if we take China to the [World Trade Organization] and slow down the unfair competition," Fthenakis adds.

Its pretty easy to research this dynamic in other industries (Google Chinese dumping, steel,tires, or any other industry you want)as well and see a bigger picture that's was/is far more profound than just U.S. pundits, and politics.

"and the emperor chimes in ......"you didn't build that business on your own " ."

Why didn't private enterprise jump in, in the early 20th century and build the infrastructure that it has become so dependent on now?
It would be in so much better shape today, wouldn't it? The businesses would have poured money into maintenance of water, roads, bridges, sewers, etc - or not?
It is headed well in that direction now with major roadways managed by business ventures and increase in toll roads.
American citizens would much rather have it that way---they never complain about tolls.

"and the emperor chimes in ......"you didn't build that business on your own " ."

Why didn't private enterprise jump in, in the early 20th century and build the infrastructure that it has become so dependent on now?

They did. Ever hear the phrase "company town?" Then the infrastructure was confiscated because of the outcry of "serfdom" from Big Labor, Progressives, and other assorted proponents of the Welfare State. Were there abuses? Of course. There always have been and always will be crooks to take advantage of any system. The problem is that now they're the government and they shape the laws so they don't have to follow them. It's now called crony capitalism.

Tal, how does competition from overseas change the cronyism dynamic of that particular scandal?

and the emperor chimes in ......"you didn't build that business on your own " .

No workers, and no customers, no business. The other side of supply is DEMAND! Something supply side capitalist like to ignore because if you cannot have slave, then take them as cheap a possible.


Which is precisely what the Progressives detest. They have been trying to assign ALL capital to the government so they can fulfill their dream of being Solyndra owners whom the government gives the capital to and expects good intentions in return.

You make it sound like that was the only Dept.of Energy loan. Need a link? Leave it to the right to nitpick and jump on selective facts, better known as hollering points.

Projects | Department of Energy (http://energy.gov/lpo/projects)

The DOE Loan Program Office, A Government Success Story | CleanTechnica (http://cleantechnica.com/2014/04/27/doe-loan-program-office-government-success-story/)

To address your cronyism ideas, which of course after you point out it goes back further than the current administration,

Fact-Checking Governor Romney's Debate Numbers on Renewables and Loans : Greentech Media (http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/fact-checking-governor-romneys-debate-numbers-on-renewables-and-loans)


Governor Romney's cronyism accusation was answered by the Washington Post: “Romney said that Obama sent money to firms whose executives had donated to his campaign. That is true in the case of Solyndra, but while House Republicans have harshly criticized the administration for that, investigations have not revealed any direct link between the loans for Solyndra and campaign support for the president.”
DOE loan recipients John Woolard, CEO of BrightSource Energy (http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/brightsource-energy-versus-la-times), and SolarReserve's Smith both denied to GTM any personal relationship with the White House that might have been associated with their funding.
GTM Research's Kann also told National Public Radio's Marketplace (http://www.marketplace.org/topics/elections/breaking-down-obamas-90-billion-green-investment%22target=%22_blank%22) that the $90 billion “includes a wide variety of programs ranging from renewables to energy efficiency to high-speed rail.” The programs, Kann added, “take a number of forms, from tax credits to R&D grants and everything in between.” They were “not all introduced by the Obama administration,” Kann said, and “were not all offered in just one year.”

Analysis of the DOE Loan Program – NearWalden (http://nearwalden.com/blog/analysis-of-the-doe-loan-program/)

I could get rich charging you guys for the truth :D

Tal, how does competition from overseas change the cronyism dynamic of that particular scandal?

Not only was it not cronyism, just one of many loans and grants, but it was not the only failed company globally that failed because of the Chinese government undercutting ALL the competition. Funny how we never hear of others, but TAL to the rescue AGAIN!!!!!!!!!

http://grist.org/politics/house-republican-accidentally-tells-truth-about-solyndra-investigation/

MORE facts, old, but you have some catching up to do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/five-myths-about-the-solyndra-collapse/2011/09/14/gIQAfkyvRK_blog.html

"Ever hear the phrase "company town?"

I was raised in a company town.The company towns I know of were coal mining towns with outhouses, mud streets and company stores where most of the money earned by miners came back to the company. Above ground strip mines leaving huge caverns and bare ground, erosion, acid runoff and destruction of wildlife habitat. The area I am speaking of (Western MD) is still so far behind that states and counties are struggling to provide clean water and sewage to the citizens in those company mining towns. It will take another 20 or more years to bring them up to any kind of standard. The volunteer fire depts. haul drinking water into those towns on a continual basis, Or present day mountain top mining in WV where streams are plowed shut and the folks live in fear of mudslides with every storm. Or gas mining areas where super sized loads destroy the roads that were finally put in place. Is this desire of business to create infrastructure a thing of the past?
Are you satisfied with the private business partnerships with states to create toll roadways, pay for use express lanes. Good, you got it (depending on where you reside)-Enjoy.
Ever use the US Interstate Highway system. Eisenhower was a Republican. Why didn't he call on private partnerships to build it?
Infrastructure built by developers today, design and inspection of which if not checked and construction inspection performed by government, fail within a year or two of opening to use.
Does government grow into an unmanageable self serving bureaucracy of people doing less work for more salary every day. Absolutely.
"and the emperor chimes in ......"you didn't build that business on your own " . Could have been said better without the essentially personal attack.
But, try building a coke bottling plant in an area where government won't participate and give you some mulitmillion dollar 42 inch or so water and sewer lines.
Government confiscated infrastructure. More like companies begged towns to take over the scant amount they had so they wouldn't have to absorb the cost of maintenance. And they still do.

are you describing a third world country of something from the beginning of the last century, I have heard of such things before WWII but we have moved on and a twenty-first century country doesn't look like that. If your capitalists would eny teh population they should be stood against the wall. is this why you kling to the gun for those who can afford one

Wow:

WIL WHEATON dot TUMBLR — As if this isn't hard enough (http://wilwheaton.tumblr.com/post/87142721554/as-if-this-isnt-hard-enough)

WOW is right. I could only find one other article about this:Sonoma County Man Battling Cancer Denied Coverage By Anthem Blue Cross After Paying $100K In Premiums « CBS San Francisco (http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/05/28/health-insurance-provider-denies-cancer-treatment-premium-mri-scan-tumor-sonoma-county-man-battling-cancer-denied-coverage-by-anthem-blue-cross-after-paying-100k-in-premiums/)

That article says that Anthem won't respond until they get a HIPAA release from the patient. It will be interesting to hear their side of this story, but can't imagine what it would be.
One thing that seems unusual here to me as a longtime Blue Cross client is that so much has transpired on this case in probably less than 2 weeks. It was diagnosed, treatment started, analyzed by Anthem originally, sent to a review panel, analyzed by that panel, and written response prepared, sent, received, and reported on. I have had denials before (not Anthem but other Blue Cross affiliate) and it was more like a month to receive any first notice that something was awry. Could have been expedited because of severity of the illness and high, rapidly accumulating costs involved maybe. As if the guy and family didn't have enough problems already.

did I say something about a third world country, it's like hearing a story from Planet of the Apes

Anthem Blue Cross: Hospitalizing cancer patient for emergency chemo isn't "medically necessary". (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/28/1302687/-Anthem-Blue-Cross-Hospitalizing-cancer-patient-for-emergency-chemo-isn-t-medically-necessary#)


Zoë and Jeff submitted their claim to their health insurance provider, Anthem Blue Cross. Their claim was reviewed by an OB-GYN instead of an Oncologist for some reason, and that person decided to deny their claim:

I have been through the appeals process a few times myself after being denied initially, the last one was settled with a phone call. 3 weeks total. I can bet this was all triggered by tests, and an emergency room visit rather than an routine admission for treatment to the hospital from the physician.

The first time I was notified my claim was rejected it was scary but only needed additional paperwork by the primary physician to be cleared up. Insurance companies hate it when you go to the emergency room when you have a doctor because they have to pay more.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I have never heard of emergency chemotherapy, nor an emergency room equipped to perform it. Thats rather confusing.

Anthem Blue Cross: Hospitalizing cancer patient for emergency chemo isn't "medically necessary". (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/28/1302687/-Anthem-Blue-Cross-Hospitalizing-cancer-patient-for-emergency-chemo-isn-t-medically-necessary#)



I have been through the appeals process a few times myself after being denied initially, the last one was settled with a phone call. 3 weeks total. I can bet this was all triggered by tests, and an emergency room visit rather than an routine admission for treatment to the hospital from the physician.

The first time I was notified my claim was rejected it was scary but only needed additional paperwork by the primary physician to be cleared up. Insurance companies hate it when you go to the emergency room when you have a doctor because they have to pay more.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I have never heard of emergency chemotherapy, nor an emergency room equipped to perform it. Thats rather confusing.

If you are being teated at a medical center then they have almost everything available. Its not so much that the emergency room has the equiptment but the rest of the hospital might have it. It is a shame the reveiwer wasnt from the classification for this mans illness.

Not sure why the man would need to be reveiwed by a baby doctor.

Lamya Jarjour | LinkedIn (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/lamya-jarjour/64/37/5b4)


UCLA Physician Lamya Jarjour, MD (http://www.uclahealth.org/body.cfm?id=479&action=detail&ref=19319)

Specialty
Gynecology, Obstetrics, Obstetrics & Gynecology

Why would a private doctor be moonlighting as a reviewer for insurance claims in the first place? Nothing about this smells right, or even professional.

doctors contract for sessional payments from various entities, ER, Insurers, hospitals, its the way the profession works

Why would a private doctor be moonlighting as a reviewer for insurance claims in the first place? Nothing about this smells right, or even professional.


From the looks of it they have chaired several commities and Im sure this is more for the resume then the patient.

well of course, goes without saying, if you want to progress you have to be seen

well of course, goes without saying, if you want to progress you have to be seen

On the backs of the sick and suffering?

I worked with medico's years ago, ethics is not taught in medical school so outside of procedure anything goes

EPIC - Trey Gowdy gets a standing ovation on House Floor - 'We Make Law!' - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzZT9gW5gp8#t=318)

Didn't know Youtube had a winger channel, and it was a nice speech but he should have added that the WE in WE MAKE LAW is in concert with the other branches of government, as well as the rest of the house. Its in the constitution, hollering aside, and ovations notwithstanding.

He was correct in pointing out the favorability of the congress is lower than roach poop. That's not just the liberals fault either!

WE in WE MAKE LAW is in concert with the other branches of government

You are joking right ? Read article 1 .... Congress Makes laws . No other branch of government does .

I figured it out . The libs really think it's in the emperor's constitutional powers to make laws .

The president has to sign or veto it, and the congress must VOTE to override in circumstance of a veto, and Scotus is the final arbiter of constitutionality on ANY law the congress makes that's challenged.

Like I said "in concert". That's the concept of checks AND balances.


The libs really think it's in the emperor's constitutional powers to make laws .

When the congress fails to act, then the president can step up and failure of the congress to act is an obvious fact at this time, while you are hollering loud and doing NOTHING!!

irrelevant to Gowdy's point . The laws the emperor changes are already signed into law and in the case of Obamacare ,SCOTUS has already ,albeit mistakenly ,has affirmed it's constitutionality . Still the emperor thinks he can change the law on a whim .

You failed to vote him out and Mitt in, so guess who has the discretion of implementation. Don't blame YOUR failure on the guy who won. But you will and have been doing just that.

Gowdy concede the discretion . That again does not address his point that the emperor has no power to change laws.

Saying it's so doesn't make it so. We have to wait on the SCOTUS ruling on that. Till then, its an opinion. Gowdy is a lawyer and former prosecutor and he knows that.

They should have stayed seated and reviewed the facts (Executive Orders (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php)).

GW Bush Executive Orders: 291

Obama Executive Orders: 168

And: "In an article published on April 30, 2006, the (Boston)Globe wrote that “President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office.” In a clarification issued May 4, 2006, the Globe note that Bush had not really challenged 750 bills (which would have implied 750 signing statements), but “has claimed the authority to bypass more than 750 statutes, which were provisions contained in about 125 bills.” (Presidential Signing Statements (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php#q3) )

This was not a matter of signing statements . This is an issue of the emperor making significant changes that's contrary to statutory language in the ACA.

i don't understand your complaint according to you the legislation exists by fiat, how then can it not be altered by fiat?

You know very well Tom I posted several links citing the provisions of the law that allow the HHS secretary to make changes during the implementation, so whose fault is it you never bothered to read them?

Can We Learn From ACA Implementation and Improve the Law? | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (http://kff.org/health-reform/perspective/can-we-learn-from-aca-implementation-and-improve-the-law/)


HHS will also have the ability to make changes through administrative authority, waivers, and new regulations.

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41664.pdf


For many of ACA's most significant reform provisions, the HHS Secretary and other federal officials are required to take certain actions, such as issuing regulations or interim final rules, by a specific date. As already noted, many of the key components of market reform and coverage expansion do not take effect
until 2014. Implementing some parts of the law will entail extensive rulemaking and other actions
by federal agencies; other changes will be largely self-executing, pursuant to the new statutory
requirements. ACA also creates a variety of new commissions and advisory bodies, some with
substantial decision-making authority (e.g., IPAB).


As noted before even the congress could make changes if they had their act together.




You could read it for yourself before you start hollering AGAIN. Facts do matter over perception and spin.

The Inspector General for HHS has released a study assessing the effectiveness of Obamacare’s Federal and State health insurance marketplaces.
The IG’s verdict? The exchanges aren’t working.
Two Government Audits Reveal Massive ObamaCare Failures - Investors.com (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-obama-care/070114-707080-government-audits-find-huge-obamacare-failures-.htm)

Because their doctors are no longer accepting their Obamacare health plans, patients are flocking to emergency rooms in California...increasing waiting times up to 5 hrs. KMPH-CA: ObamaCare Having A "Destructive" Effect On ERs & Cutting Access To Care In California - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3mU7eRPYSE)

Dr.Robert Subers said he cannot accept some Obamacare insurance because the payments are so low he would end up owing money out of his own pocket for each visit. “If it was supposed to increase access to care, Obamacare, and if it was supposed to bring down healthcare costs, I’m trying to find out where it’s done either.”

payments are so low he would end up owing money out of his own pocket for each visit

All part of the plan to nationalize health care.

THere goes more inaccurate Wikipedia references...

Oh By the way... Obamas Presidential Library is alredy been revealed...


http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/Bolibrary.jpg

turns out that HHS is not the only dept challenged when it comes to introducing IT . The Social Security Administration took on a project of modernizing the computer systems that handled disability claims. According to a new report, the program invested $288 million and found that there was no single person responsible for completing the project.
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/DCPS-Study.compressed.pdf

the program has invested $288 million over six years, delivered limited functionality, and faced schedule delays as well as increasing stakeholder concerns
Social Security spent $300M on 'IT boondoggle' (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/social-security-spent-300m-it-boondoggle)
McKinsey issued their report in June, but it wasn't publicly released. Now the House Oversight Committee is looking into whether or not senior agency staff at the SSA tried to bury the report (ie another cover up) .

Think about this boondoggle . This is a case where the gvt is trying to service 11 million people . Yet they thing they can efficiently manage the health needs of 315 million Americans .

I think Cats is right, you will go through the pain all over again if the ACA is thrown out, so the clue is to get that insurance and hold it

that narrative they dare not speak is that they always intended this to be the 'camels nose under the tent' intermediate step for their ultimate goal of government total control and take over of the health care system.

And you know Tom that option might not be as bad as you think as long as there is room for private health insurance, all the low income people get covered and you get what you want

There has always been a growing consensus for a more inclusive health care policy Tom and its no secret where this is going. More inclusive is where everything is going, and not at the whim of JUST corporate interests exclusively.

The welfare class expects everything for free, while they sit home and watch cable TV, play the Xbox, surf the internet from their Obama phones and breed more of their kind. While collecting their welfare checks.

Then you have a simple expedient Tom stop paying them benefits, you see you too have this philosopy that there are plenty of jobs available but if that were so you wouldn't have unemployed people

If someone is going to get X plus a long list of benefits... or go to work for the same amount (welfare people are NOT highly skilled) but with fewer if any benefits... who is going to get up in the morning? And the Democrat party has a vested interest in keeping the gravy train going full throttle.

You see there is the problem I don't think anyone has a vested interest in keeping the gravy train going full throttle. That "train" exists out of a need, to ensure there isn't a population who is so destitute that it becomes a reason for civil unrest and disorder. I don't know whether it has succeeded where you live, it certainly has here and efforts to reform it are always met with resistance