 |
Nobody says it was great, but so far detractors or not its better for the many than it was before the law. Without the ACA you would be hollering about how the insurance company is taking more of your money. If you quit hollering and ask specific questions, you can get answers.
Not from ideologically driven blogs either.
You can just keep pretending it's a good thing if you want but we know we got screwed and Dems know we got screwed. Why do you think no one wants Obama to campaign for him this year?
You mean dems in red states? Kind of obvious isn't it? They need conservative votes to keep there jobs. It's always been that way.
remember when Sebillius said there would be no delays ?
Sebelius: Obamacare "delay is not an option" - CBS News
LOL, she obviously meant delay tactics from the right.
So the regime that has freed us from the tyranny of the law has made more stuff up with no statutory authority to do so.
So not only has he illegally granted these waivers he's giving businessmen incentives to perjure themselves - so he can blather on about how Obamacare is not costing jobs. Are none of you people disturbed by this man yet? Are you anxious to see what a TP president might do with this type of abuse of power?Quote:
I am not just talking about the president’s (latest) illegal waiver of the employer mandate, which yet again delays (this time, to 2016) the requirement that businesses with 50 to 99 employees must provide Obama-certified coverage or pay crushing fines – a desperate political calculation to accommodate Democrats who face angry voters this November. I am talking about the other bomb administration officials dropped in announcing this unconstitutional edict.
Obama’s central command policies are inevitably crashing into each other. The waiver may provide some relief to endangered Democrats, but it also gives employers an incentive to lay off employees in order to get under 100 and qualify for the illegal waiver. So Obama has unilaterally legislated illegal conditions on the illegal waiver. To wit, employers will be required to certify to the IRS, under penalty of perjury, that the waiver was not a motivating factor in the company’s hiring and firing decisions. As Fox News’s Chris Stirewalt quips, “To avoid ObamaCare costs you must swear that you are not trying to avoid ObamaCare costs.”
So now Obama, like a standard-issue leftist dictator, is complementing lawlessness with socialist irrationality.
Think about how lunatic this is. There is nothing even faintly illegal about businesses’ – indeed, all economic actors’ – making financial decisions based on tax consequences. (And remember, notwithstanding Obama’s misrepresentations to the contrary, Obamacare mandates are taxes – as Obama’s Justice Department argued and as Chief Justice Roberts & Co. concluded.) The tax consequences of Obamacare are profound – that is precisely the reason that Obama is “waiving” them. No responsible officers in a corporation of relevant size would fail to take them into account in making the decision to staff at over or under 100 employees; in determining whether some full-time employees should be terminated or shifted to part-time; or in making any number of the decisions Obamacare’s mind-numbing complexity requires.
The officers’ responsibility is to the owners of the company, the shareholders. The business exists to create value, not to provide employment – employing workers is a function of the value added to the enterprise, not the need to create a more favorable election environment for the statist political party. Corporate officers who overlooked material tax consequences would be unfit to be corporate officers.
What is illegal and irrational is not a company’s commonsense deliberation over its costs, it is Obama’s edict. And look what attends this one: criminal prosecution if Obama’s Justice Department decides the business has falsely certified that its staffing decision was not motivated by Obamacare.
Think about that for a second. The waiver is illegal. It flouts the language of the Obamacare statute, under which the employer mandate is required already to have been implemented by now. There is nothing in the law that empowers Obama to waive the mandate, much less to attach lawless conditions to such a lawless waiver. A business that seeks the waiver and fails to pay the mandated tax (in lieu of providing the required coverage) is in violation of federal statutory law, regardless of its compliance with Obama’s outlaw edict. The payments required by the statute, after all, are owed to the public, not to Obama – he’s got no authority to deprive the government of these funds just because it would harm Democrats to collect them.
Yet, Obama proclaims his illegal waiver with impunity – Congress apparently unwilling to stop him. You, on the other hand, will be prosecuted for breaking the “law” if you do not comply to Obama’s satisfaction with the illegal and irrational condition he has unilaterally placed on his illegal waiver.
This is what your Democrats are going to be facing this election (if they show up). If they get in Minnesota you can count on them getting it elsewhere.
I'm surprised Walz didn't tout the opportunity to escape "job lock."Quote:
The lawmakers fielded other questions as well, talking debt and immigration reform, but it was the question about the struggling health care law that everyone in the audience wanted to see answered, and two out of the three Democrats on the dais seemed hesitant to tackle.
The question: "I thought the Affordable Care Act would save $2500 per family. What happened?"
After Sen. Klobuchar and Rep. Walz looked at each other, laughter broke out in the room.
Rep. Peterson quickly picked up the microphone to say, "I voted 'no', so I'll let these guys handle that," to the applause of the crowd.
Both Klobuchar and Walz said they were aware of the problems, and wanted to find ways to fix it.
Walz says, "This health discussion has got to be broader, it's got to point out where there are weaknesses and failures, it's got to make sure we're not leaving people behind or distorting the system. But don't pretend there was some type of safe harbor before this where everything was just peachy keen."
Senate Dems are asking Why Didn’t Someone Tell Us Obamacare Would Cut Medicare? You can't make this stuff up.
Meanwhile, "Covered" Californians are asking why we can't see a doctor? I'd say it's because those Dems who didn't bother to read the law and lied about it's greatness screwed you over.
And now we have at least one desperate Dem who would vote to repeal.
Who'll join him?Quote:
A first Democratic senator has indicated he thinks it might be time to scrap Obamacare. While legislators should work to fix the law in the meantime, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia told Beckley’s Register Herald that he would support getting rid of the law entirely.
“I will vote tomorrow to repeal [the Affordable Care Act], but I want to fix the problems in it,” Manchin told an audience.
Not me or anybody else who NEEDS the law. So be like Manchin and start fixing it to fit more peoples NEEDS. You don't have the votes to repeal, and you lost in court, so start fixing already.
You guys are in charge, dude, what have you done to fix it?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Keep you guys from repealing it.
Wow, that's an impressive "fix," what exactly has that fixed?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
A lot of people signing up and exploring their options. Options for good health they never had before.
I believe you're in the denial stage of grief.
Sebelius wants you to know Obamacare is not costing jobs, so in honor of her helpful remarks...
ObamaCare Employer Mandate: A List Of Cuts To Work Hours, Jobs - Investors.com
http://youtu.be/FHkxVXB37EU
Precisely.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
First they lie about how fantastic it will be then they lie about how fantastic it is. Obama gets the maximum 4 Pinocchios for his Medicaid claim.Quote:
The Rube Goldberg Democrats means that whether from laziness or arrogance, the party is now producing political contraptions that are monuments to inefficiency, incomprehension and unworkability. Before ObamaCare, it often went unnoticed. But the health-care law sits out in plain view, letting every voter connect the dots between political promise and nonperformance.
Obama’s claim that 7 million got ‘access to health care for the first time’ because of his Medicaid expansion
After the lie of the year his nose is getting remarkably long.
Attachment 45713
Like that's the only lie in town,
Issa's 'suspicions' that Hillary Clinton told Panetta to 'stand down' on Benghazi
Wrong thread, this is about the crap sandwich called (less and less) Obamacare.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I thought it was about getting caught lying.
Nope, it was lying about Obamacare - still. There's a Benghazi thread if you wish to take up Issa's off the cuff remarks.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
The regime has its first death panel victim, Doge.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bhab7mICYAAuSpS.jpg
Surprise! Another unilateral change to Obamacare designed exclusively to help Democrats win elections, i.e. not have to face the consequences of their stupid law, which by the time they get done with it will be totally unworkable.
Of course seeing as how most of us have already had our old plans canceled I fully expect people to still be pi$$ed about it in November. But hey, I can't wait to get my first mammogram and pap smear.Quote:
The Obama administration is set to announce another major delay in implementing the Affordable Care Act, easing election pressure on Democrats.
As early as this week, according to two sources, the White House will announce a new directive allowing insurers to continue offering health plans that do not meet ObamaCare’s minimum coverage requirements.
Prolonging the “keep your plan” fix will avoid another wave of health policy cancellations otherwise expected this fall.
The cancellations would have created a firestorm for Democratic candidates in the last, crucial weeks before Election Day.
The White House is intent on protecting its allies in the Senate, where Democrats face a battle to keep control of the chamber.
“I don’t see how they could have a bunch of these announcements going out in September,” one consultant in the health insurance industry said. “Not when they’re trying to defend the Senate and keep their losses at a minimum in the House. This is not something to have out there right before the election.”
The White House and the Department of Health and Human Services on Monday both said they had no updates to announce.
Late last year, the administration was grappling with the beleaguered HealthCare.gov and millions of canceled health plans in the individual market.
Republicans noted President Obama had repeatedly promised that no one would lose their health plan if they wanted to keep it.
Obama subsequently called on states and the insurance industry to allow people to keep their existing plans for an additional year. While many states agreed, it left the administration with a dilemma.
A one-year moratorium pushed the deadline beyond the midterm election, but insurers must send out cancellation notices 90 days in advance. That would mean notices in the mail by Oct. 1, five weeks before voters go to the polls.
The administration’s decision to pursue another extension was confirmed by insurance sources who predicted a public announcement would be “imminent.” It is unclear how long the extension will be, though one source believed it could last to the end of Obama’s second term, and perhaps beyond.
This issue is sure to be discussed during the 2016 presidential race, in which Hillary Clinton is expected to run.
In November, amid the rash of health plan cancellations, former President Clinton said Obama should allow people to keep their current coverage.
“I personally believe, even if it takes a change in the law, the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they got,” Clinton said at the time.
Allowing insurers to continue offering noncompliant health plans for several years would substantially alter the health insurance landscape under ObamaCare.
It would also undercut one rationale for the healthcare reform law.
Under the Affordable Care Act, health plans are required to offer 10 medical benefits that the Obama administration deems essential.
Some of the services are popular, such as prescription drug coverage, but others, such as maternity and pediatric care, have been criticized as expensive as well as being unnecessary for many policyholders, such as older people.
Read more: New ObamaCare delay to help Democrats in midterm elections | TheHill
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
Says it all.
The dismantling of obamacare continues, this time secretly.
ObamaCare's Secret Mandate Exemption - WSJ.com
As more and more right wing horror stories get DEBUNKED!!
Woman in debunked Obamacare horror story finally speaks ... to Fox News#
Obamacare horror story debunked by Seattle Times columnist | The Raw Story
Quote:
“So here's a family that was totally uninsured for 15 years because it had always cost at least $500 to $600 a month for skimpy policies to cover them both. And what they can get now is full coverage for $30 a month for the son and scantier coverage in the $250 to $300 a month range for the mom. How is that a horror story?”
Nice diversion, which is the official Democrat strategy, change the subject. Tell me, what's the point of "the law of the land" now that he's virtually rendered it pointless?
He's trying to save his reign from his own party's revolt. Yeah that's right . The Repubics were never on board . It's his own ranks that are threatening to leave like rats off a sunken ship. His extra-Constitutional decrees are an attempt to save his shrinking coalition.
Accommodating the fears of a few scared ducks isn't pointless. Gives them time to get their own facts for themselves. He only waived the deadlines and give them the reasons for a waiver, but any scared duck will realize they better at least look before they quack.
In a year we may not be talking about a million people, let alone in two, so what's the harm?
gee think about it ... a President who can change the law any time he deems it suitable. All hail emperor Barakus Obamanum !Quote:
so what's the harm?
I see you guys didn't miss the 50th repeal vote, and hear the 51st isn't far behind. You should try the green tomatoes and eggs, you might like it.
round and around and around we go and where we will come out, noone knows
Justice Anthony Kennedy asked this question in the Q&A at SCOTUS of the 'Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius' cases. Unless Chief Justice Roberts decides that violating the mandate from HHS is a tax , it's looking good that the mandate forcing them to cover abortafacients will be overturned.Quote:
“What kind of a constitutional structure do we have if Congress can give an agency the power to grant or not grant a religious exemption based on what the agency determined?”
Here is a picture of the very few people that still think Obamacare is agood idea.
http://peakcare.files.wordpress.com/...n-the-sand.jpg
got a few of them have you?
Hello again, tom:Quote:
“What kind of a constitutional structure do we have if Congress can give an agency the power to grant or not grant a religious exemption based on what the agency determined?”
Nahhhh. I read Kennedy's comments differently..Quote:
Unless Chief Justice Roberts decides that violating the mandate from HHS is a tax , it's looking good that the mandate forcing them to cover abortafacients will be overturned.
I believe he's saying that NO agency of government can grant or deny a religious exemption. It's just not within their Constitutional purview to do it. That's WHY tax books begin with the words, "Church's are exempt". They make NO effort at defining a church. That's because the First Amendment says the government cannot establish a religion. And, if the government can't tell you what a religion IS, then it can't tell you what it ISN'T either. So, it stays OUT of that bailiwick altogether. I believe it will continue to do.
Therefore, irrespective of their claim, the agency has NO Constitutional authority to grant it or even consider it.. The claim of exemption MUST be denied.
excon
Are You There God? It's Me, Hobby Lobby | Mother Jones
So all of a sudden this is an issue when it wasn't an issue before??Quote:
On many levels, the Hobby Lobby case is a mess of bad facts, political opportunism, and questionable legal theories that might be laughable had some federal courts not taken them seriously. Take for instance Hobby Lobby's argument that providing coverage for Plan B and Ella substantially limits its religious freedom. The company admits in its complaint that until it considered filing the suit in 2012, its generous health insurance plan actually covered Plan B and Ella (though not IUDs). The burden of this coverage was apparently so insignificant that God, and Hobby Lobby executives, never noticed it until the mandate became a political issue......
And then there is the real science that has been totally ignored,Quote:
The fact that Hobby Lobby once covered the drugs it now objects to is "evidence that these cases are part of a broader effort to undermine the Affordable Care Act, and push new legal theories that could result in businesses being allowed to break the law and harm others under the guise of religious freedom," says Gretchen Borchelt, senior counsel and director of state reproductive health policy at the National Women's Law Center.
I actually hope they win, so the employees of these religious beliefs companies denied reproductive health care can sue for discrimination, and more money.Quote:
The company argues that emergency contraception pills, such as Ella and Plan B, destroy fertilized eggs by interfering with implantation in the uterus. Hobby Lobby's owners consider this abortion. But the pills don't work that way. When Plan B first came on the market in 1999, its mechanism for preventing unplanned pregnancies wasn't entirely clear. That's why the FDA-approved labeling reflected some uncertainty and said that the pills "theoretically" prevent pregnancy by interfering with implantation. Since then, though, there has been a lot of research on how these pills work, and the findings are definitive: They prevent pregnancy by blocking ovulation. In fact, they don't work once ovulation has occurred. As Corbin recently wrote in a law review article, "Every reputable scientific study to examine Plan B's mechanism has concluded that these pills prevent fertilization from occurring in the first place…In short, Plan B is contraception."
http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/...-0001-0001.pdf (page 14 #55)Quote:
Recently, after learning about the nationally prominent HHS mandate controversy, Hobby Lobby re-examined its insurance policy to ensure they continued to be consistent with its faith. During that re-examination, Hobby Lobby discovered that the formulary for its prescription drug policy included two drugs -- Plan B and Ella -- that could cause an abortion. Coverage of these drugs was not included knowingly or deliberately by the Green family [members of which own the company via a trust]. Such coverage is out of step with the rest of Hobby Lobby's policies, which explicitly exclude abortion-causing contraceptive devices and pregnancy-termination drugs. Hobby Lobby therefore immediately excluded the inconsistent drugs from its policies.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:11 AM. |