More Obamacare fuckups

[Tgo01]

Story. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/obamacare-glitch-unaffordable_n_3435735.html?ref=topbar)


WASHINGTON -- It's called the Affordable Care Act, but President Barack Obama's health care law may turn out to be unaffordable for many low-wage workers, including employees at big chain restaurants, retail stores and hotels.

That might seem strange since the law requires medium-sized and large employers to offer "affordable" coverage or face fines.

But what's reasonable? Because of a wrinkle in the law, companies can meet their legal obligations by offering policies that would be too expensive for many low-wage workers. For the employee, it's like a mirage – attractive but out of reach.

The company can get off the hook, say corporate consultants and policy experts, but the employee could still face a federal requirement to get health insurance.

Many are expected to remain uninsured, possibly risking fines. That's due to another provision: the law says workers with an offer of "affordable" workplace coverage aren't entitled to new tax credits for private insurance, which could be a better deal for those on the lower rungs of the middle class.

Some supporters of the law are disappointed. It smacks of today's Catch-22 insurance rules.

"Some people may not gain the benefit of affordable employer coverage," acknowledged Ron Pollack, president of Families USA, a liberal advocacy group leading efforts to get uninsured people signed up for coverage next year.

"It is an imperfection in the new law," Pollack added. "The new law is a big step in the right direction, but it is not perfect, and it will require future improvements."

Andy Stern, former president of the Service Employees International Union, the 2-million-member service-sector labor union, called the provision "an avoidance opportunity" for big business. SEIU provided grass-roots support during Obama's long struggle to push the bill through Congress.

The law is complicated, but essentially companies with 50 or more full-time workers are required to offer coverage that meets certain basic standards and costs no more than 9.5 percent of an employee's income. Failure to do so means fines for the employer. (Full-time work is defined as 30 or more hours a week, on average.)

But do the math from the worker's side: For an employee making $21,000 a year, 9.5 percent of their income could mean premiums as high as $1,995 and the insurance would still be considered affordable.

Even a premium of $1,000 – close to the current average for employee-only coverage – could be unaffordable for someone stretching earnings in the low $20,000's.

With such a small income, "there is just not any left over for health insurance," said Shannon Demaree, head of actuarial services for the Lockton Benefit Group. "What the government is requiring employers to do isn't really something their low-paid employees want."

Based in Kansas City, Mo., Lockton is an insurance broker and benefits consultant that caters to many medium-sized businesses affected by the health care law. Actuaries like Demaree specialize in cost estimates.

Another thing to keep in mind: premiums wouldn't be the only expense for employees. For a basic plan, they could also face an annual deductible amounting to $3,000 or so, before insurance starts paying.

"If you make $20,000, are you really going to buy that?" asked Tracy Watts, health care reform leader at Mercer, a major benefits consulting firm.

And low-wage workers making more than about $15,900 won't be eligible for the law's Medicaid expansion, shutting down another possibility for getting covered.

It's not exactly the picture the administration has painted. The president portrays his health care law as economic relief for struggling workers.

"Let's make sure that everybody who is out there working hard and doing the right thing, that they're not going to go bankrupt because they get sick, that they're going to have health care they can count on," Obama said in a Chicago appearance last summer during the presidential campaign. "And we got that done."

White House senior communications advisor Tara McGuinness downplayed concerns. "There has been a lot of conjecture about what people might do or could do, but this hasn't actually happened yet," she said. "The gap between sky-is-falling predictions about the health law and what is happening is very wide."

The administration believes "most businesses want to do right by their employees and will continue to use tax breaks to provide quality coverage to their workers," she added. Health insurance is tax deductible for employers, and the health law provides additional tax breaks to help small businesses.

Virtually all major employers currently offer health insurance, although skimpy policies offered to many low-wage workers may not meet the requirements of the new law. Companies affected have been reluctant to telegraph how they plan to comply.

"It clearly isn't going to be a morale-boosting moment when you redo your health plan to discourage participation," said Stern, the former labor leader, now a senior fellow at Columbia University. "It's not something most want to advertise until they are sure it's the right decision."

The National Retail Federation's top health care expert said there's no "grand scheme to avoid responsibility" among employers. "That is a little too Machiavellian," said Neil Trautwein.

Nonetheless, he acknowledged it's "a possible outcome" that low-wage workers could find coverage unaffordable because of the wrinkle in the law.

It might have turned out differently, added Trautwein, if Democrats had followed traditional congressional practice and taken the House and Senate versions of the bill to a conference committee. They could have worked out such quirks. But leaders determined that path was fraught with political peril after Democrats lost their 60-vote Senate majority in 2010.

"I can't help but thinking, they would have figured out a few more of these corners that don't meet," Trautwein said.

TL;DR

A company can legally charge 9.5% for their healthcare plan to their employees. 9.5% of a 20,000 dollar salary is 1,900 dollars, most workers making 20k a year don't have 2k a year laying around for health insurance. Even if they did many of these plans have a 3k a year deductible before the insurance kicks in meaning employees making 20k a year would have to pay 5k (or one fourth of their income) before they get any use at all out of their insurance.

Since the company offered an "affordable" plan to their employees the employees aren't eligible for any government assistance in obtaining healthcare. If employee can't afford the "affordable" healthcare offered by their employers then they can't receive any government assistance, if they can't receive any government assistance they now have to pay a fine for not having health insurance since it's the law that everyone must have health insurance.

If the TL;DR is TL;DR:

Obamacare is fucking useless.

[Back]

Well just think... if you and everyone out there like you had actually voted against Obama he would not be in office right now and you would not have anything to complain about.

[Tgo01]

Well just think... if you and everyone out there like you had actually voted against Obama he would not be in office right now and you would not have anything to complain about.

Are you saying Obama is so useless that if everyone in the US would have actually voted he would have lost?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Jarvan]

To me the stupidest thing about Obamacare is the fact that they didn't roll dental up with healthcare.

Dental problems are one of the largest causes of heart issues. basically, bad teeth, bad heart, bad heart, heart attacks, heart attacks, heart surgery. So.. bad teeth = Heart Surgery. Wouldn't it make sense to have dental PART of health care? I mean our mental health is part of healthcare, why not the PHYSICAL health of our teeth and gums?

Nope.. instead they worried about giving birth control to upper income yuppy women going to law school.

[Jarvan]

Well just think... if you and everyone out there like you had actually voted against Obama he would not be in office right now and you would not have anything to complain about.

Well just think.. if you and everyone like you HADN'T voted for Obama, we wouldn't be in this mess.

See what I did there?

[Back]

No. If you want to change the system you need to vote. But you seem to prefer not voting and complaining. A lot.

[Latrinsorm]

"It is an imperfection in the new law," Pollack added. "The new law is a big step in the right direction, but it is not perfect, and it will require future improvements."No. Wrong. It is either perfect or an unmitigated disaster, no gray area.

[Jarvan]

No. If you want to change the system you need to vote. But you seem to prefer not voting and complaining. A lot.

Btw.. Obamacare passed in 2010. So.. Guess what, my voting habit in 2012 made no difference. I voted against Obama in 2008, so I did my job.

Sorry, it's your fault that little Timmy and his family won't have health insurance and have to pay a fine. Sucks to be you.

Also, voting doesn't really change the system, it just changes the assholes in charge. "Changing" the system is actually illegal.

[Tgo01]

No. Wrong. It is either perfect or an unmitigated disaster, no gray area.

When the Affordable Care Act is not affordable I don't know how else you can characterize it other than an unmitigated disaster.

[Candor]

Well just think... if you and everyone out there like you had actually voted against Obama he would not be in office right now and you would not have anything to complain about.

I did vote (as I do every election), and it wasn't for Obama. So don't blame me.

[Latrinsorm]

"Changing" the system is actually illegal.I'm not sure you're familiar with how the Constitution works.
When the Affordable Care Act is not affordable I don't know how else you can characterize it other than an unmitigated disaster.The Act is extremely affordable. I'll bet it takes less than $1,000 to print out a copy, what more do you want?

And next you'll be telling me the Alien and Sedition Acts were an unmitigated disaster because of 1947. How could the Founders have anticipated a New New Spain? They never saw Futurama.

Seriously though, the depiction in this article is that healthcare will not be affordable for a specific set of people employed by a specific type of employer under certain hypothetical conditions. This is very different from "healthcare will categorically not be affordable, hide your kids, hide your wife, hide your cell phones"; that is, an unmitigated disaster.

[Jarvan]

I'm not sure you're familiar with how the Constitution works.



No, that isn't changing the system, that is altering the rules or players.

The system we have is a two party system with a political ruling class, a wealthy class, and everyone else. The fact that some politicians spend their ENTIRE lives in elected office just proves it. Our elected officials are never held responsible for anything they do. We can't remove them from office other then voting them out the next time, which is generally insanely hard to do, because people are stupid and they just vote for either who they are told to, or who they always have voted for.

Changing the system itself would require a change in government top to bottom, in it's type, how it's formed, how it acts, etc etc.

I do not think overthrowing out government is an allowed thing under the constitution. Hence, Illegal.

[Thondalar]

What's actually going to happen with this, and is already happening, is restaurant and retail companies will no longer have full-time employees. My restaurant is already moving to everyone part-time. I've had to cut everyone in the kitchen down to no more than 30 hours a week, and hire 4 new people.

This is great for employment, right!?

Yes and no. Unemployment will certainly go down, to a degree. While MOST of the "new jobs" will be people who already work getting a second job because they are no longer allowed to work full time at one job, there will certainly be some completely new people hired. Unintended Consequence...but in this case it'll be "oh look! Unemployment is down. It took him a little while, but see? We knew Obama would bring it back down."

It just sucks that now people in this category, which is mostly the lower income earners, will have to work two part time jobs with 0 benefits instead of one full time job with shitty benefits. Since they won't be able to afford their own health insurance, and their company won't have to provide it to them because they're part time workers, they will have two options. Either work two "full" part-time jobs, that is, 30 hours a week at two different places (meaning a 60-hour work week with no overtime compensation) in order to pay the IRS fine OR...

only work ONE part time job, and get on medicaid, food stamps, etc. Which is what the (current) government wants anyway. Get everyone on the government handouts. Yes, my sheeple. It's GOOD to be lazy. See? We'll feed you, we'll give you health care...you have nothing to worry about in the Utopia we're building...

-Thond

[Methais]

Well just think... if you and everyone out there like you had actually voted against Obama he would not be in office right now and you would not have anything to complain about.

What about the rest of us that did vote against Obama?

This is clearly your fault because you voted for him.

What's more important than all of this is finding out why people still give Latrin serious responses.

[Back]

What about the rest of us that did vote against Obama?

This is clearly your fault because you voted for him.

What's more important than all of this is finding out why people still give Latrin serious responses.

Yeah, its called majority rule. The two clowns who post the most anti-Obama stuff on this board did not bother to vote in the last presidential election.

I'm very happy with my vote. Thanks.

[Warriorbird]

Are you saying Obama is so useless that if everyone in the US would have actually voted he would have lost?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

You don't want to go down that road disenfranchisement guy.

[Jarvan]

Yeah, its called majority rule. The two clowns who post the most anti-Obama stuff on this board did not bother to vote in the last presidential election.

I'm very happy with my vote. Thanks.

I see you don't really understand our political system. It's not Majority rule. The popular vote is meaningless after all.

But.. keep trying. Keep trying to say that my 1 vote in a solid blue state made a difference and is the reason why Obama is still in office. The fact that I don't like either candidate and I shouldn't have to vote for the lesser of two evils means nothing to you.

[Tgo01]

You don't want to go down that road disenfranchisement guy.

It just isn't a complete day for me unless I disenfranchise at least 50 people. My all time record was 564. This group of elderly people were heading to the voting stations but I could just tell they were voting for Obama because....well it was just obvious. So I was like "hold up there! There is a poll tax to vote 'ere today." And they started grumbling and I swear one of them was reaching for a gun so I had to pull out my nightstick (totally non sexual) and I started beating them all until they ran away.

It was a good day, another victory for the Republican party.

[Back]

I see you don't really understand our political system. It's not Majority rule. The popular vote is meaningless after all.

But.. keep trying. Keep trying to say that my 1 vote in a solid blue state made a difference and is the reason why Obama is still in office. The fact that I don't like either candidate and I shouldn't have to vote for the lesser of two evils means nothing to you.

One of our rights as Americans is to vote since this country was founded. It is what we fought and keep fighting for. You could have written in someone. To neglect that right is not criminal. Certainly there is a form of protest in not voting. But honestly... not taking the time to vote then raising your voice against the system is somewhat hollow.

[Latrinsorm]

No, that isn't changing the system, that is altering the rules or players.

The system we have is a two party system with a political ruling class, a wealthy class, and everyone else. The fact that some politicians spend their ENTIRE lives in elected office just proves it. Our elected officials are never held responsible for anything they do. We can't remove them from office other then voting them out the next time, which is generally insanely hard to do, because people are stupid and they just vote for either who they are told to, or who they always have voted for.

Changing the system itself would require a change in government top to bottom, in it's type, how it's formed, how it acts, etc etc.

I do not think overthrowing out government is an allowed thing under the constitution. Hence, Illegal.In fact that is exactly what the Constitution is for: fundamentally altering the government without the need for popular violence. If you want it, go get it. If you can be a better candidate, go to it, we don't actually have a closed political ruling class. Just look at Obama. Here's a hardworking Kenyan Islamic Indonesian Muslim with no executive experience whatsoever, and he gets elected President of the United States of America. You're white. What's your excuse? Women in the 1910s were barely a step above cattle on the political rights ladder (and that's 1910s cattle, not hippy dippy 2010s free range cruelty free cattle), and then we had women's suffrage. What's your excuse?

As to "people are stupid", that's another version of the same cop-out. If they're so easy to fool, why don't you do it?

There could be an entrenched conspiracy keeping your ideas from taking hold, or your ideas might just suck. If you don't try, you'll never know.
What's actually going to happen with this, and is already happening, is restaurant and retail companies will no longer have full-time employees. My restaurant is already moving to everyone part-time. I've had to cut everyone in the kitchen down to no more than 30 hours a week, and hire 4 new people.

This is great for employment, right!?

Yes and no. Unemployment will certainly go down, to a degree. While MOST of the "new jobs" will be people who already work getting a second job because they are no longer allowed to work full time at one job, there will certainly be some completely new people hired. Unintended Consequence...but in this case it'll be "oh look! Unemployment is down. It took him a little while, but see? We knew Obama would bring it back down."

It just sucks that now people in this category, which is mostly the lower income earners, will have to work two part time jobs with 0 benefits instead of one full time job with shitty benefits. Since they won't be able to afford their own health insurance, and their company won't have to provide it to them because they're part time workers, they will have two options. Either work two "full" part-time jobs, that is, 30 hours a week at two different places (meaning a 60-hour work week with no overtime compensation) in order to pay the IRS fine OR...

only work ONE part time job, and get on medicaid, food stamps, etc. Which is what the (current) government wants anyway. Get everyone on the government handouts. Yes, my sheeple. It's GOOD to be lazy. See? We'll feed you, we'll give you health care...you have nothing to worry about in the Utopia we're building...No, Thondalar, what will happen is the free market will magically create a restauranteur who offers full time employment with benefits and therefore magically attracts the best workers and therefore magically makes the most. It's called economics.
What's more important than all of this is finding out why people still give Latrin serious responses.I'm pretty thoughtful! And as the most scientific person here, I provide an ideological middle ground that is sorely underrepresented in modern political discourse.

[Jarvan]

In fact that is exactly what the Constitution is for: fundamentally altering the government without the need for popular violence. If you want it, go get it. If you can be a better candidate, go to it, we don't actually have a closed political ruling class. Just look at Obama. Here's a hardworking Kenyan Islamic Indonesian Muslim with no executive experience whatsoever, and he gets elected President of the United States of America. You're white. What's your excuse? Women in the 1910s were barely a step above cattle on the political rights ladder (and that's 1910s cattle, not hippy dippy 2010s free range cruelty free cattle), and then we had women's suffrage. What's your excuse?


He got elected president people people are fucking morons. He was elected by the MTV Generation really, that thinks celebrity is more important then reality. It's funny though, but I have already been hearing people on the left say "What experience does Rubio even have? He hasn't even completed a term as Senator" Go figure. But if what you are saying is I could get elected president and turn the country into a different political system, say dictatorship, I think you are sadly mistaken. Our constitution allows limited change, with a 2/3rds majority. Which is generally the political ruling class. Example.. why don't we have term limits? Because those in power don't want them.

[Tisket]

​THAN

[~Rocktar~]

I'm pretty thoughtful! And as the most scientific person here, I provide an ideological middle ground that is sorely underrepresented in modern political discourse.

Thoughtful? Pardon me a moment.

HA! HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA !HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

That's better, now I can get back to the discussion. Oh, right, middle ground you say? You are about as middle of the road as Carl Rove or George Soros.

[Candor]

I'm pretty thoughtful! And as the most scientific person here, I provide an ideological middle ground that is sorely underrepresented in modern political discourse.

News flash: You are not in the ideological middle ground.

[everan]

Our health insurance agent told us yesterday that our premiums may go up 30% or more when we renew. There's no way that we can shoulder that, so we will either need to drastically reduce coverage or opt to pay the penalty and let the employee's fend for themselves, which ultimately may be the best thing for them. They may be able to get better coverage through Obamacare than what we can offer them for the money, but if we offer them a plan even if it sucks, they would be ineligible.

My conspiracy theory all along was that the goal was to price health insurance out of the business market and thereby force people onto the government plans. They couldn't get socialized health insurance to fly the first time around, so they needed to come up with a long term insidious plan that could get the job done before people figured it out.

[ClydeR]

They may be able to get better coverage through Obamacare than what we can offer them for the money, but if we offer them a plan even if it sucks, they would be ineligible.

Unless an employer has only a few employees who are all sickly, then the employer will always be able provide a cheaper group policy than will be available to individuals on the exchanges. When you add tax considerations into the mix, both employer and employee are clearly better off trading cash compensation for insurance coverage. You need a new insurance agent.

[ClydeR]

To me the stupidest thing about Obamacare is the fact that they didn't roll dental up with healthcare.

Note to self.. Jarvan is a dentist.

[Warriorbird]

Thoughtful? Pardon me a moment.

HA! HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA !HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

That's better, now I can get back to the discussion. Oh, right, middle ground you say? You are about as middle of the road as Carl Rove or George Soros.

You totally seem balanced when you post like this.

[RichardCranium]

Thoughtful? Pardon me a moment.

HA! HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA !HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

That's better, now I can get back to the discussion. Oh, right, middle ground you say? You are about as middle of the road as Carl Rove or George Soros.

Latrinsorm is a Republican.

[Methais]

Latrinsorm is a Republican.

You thought he was serious in those "...and as a Republican..." posts?

[Latrinsorm]

He got elected president people people are fucking morons. He was elected by the MTV Generation really, that thinks celebrity is more important then reality. It's funny though, but I have already been hearing people on the left say "What experience does Rubio even have? He hasn't even completed a term as Senator" Go figure. But if what you are saying is I could get elected president and turn the country into a different political system, say dictatorship, I think you are sadly mistaken. Our constitution allows limited change, with a 2/3rds majority. Which is generally the political ruling class. Example.. why don't we have term limits? Because those in power don't want them.I don't think any of those words mean what you think they mean. If you would, let me go point by point:

1. You could absolutely turn the country into a de jure dictatorship. Although it does require a particular voting threshold, there is no limit to changing our Constitution. The main body of the text has been repeatedly altered by Amendments. This is why people can talk about Amending the Constitution to permit foreign-born citizens to run for President, for instance.

2. If you were elected President, you could absolutely turn the country into a de facto dictatorship. (You could even argue it already has been.) The trouble with looking at everything in black and white is that you lose any depth of vision and just go by labels. We are called a democratic republic, and yet in practice we are closer to some historical dictatorships than some historical republics.

3. We do have (some) term limits. If you want more and can convince people that it's a good idea, we will have more. If you can't convince people, it might not be the fault of a shadowy political elite or a vapid electorate. It might be your fault for not having good ideas. Sometimes you fail because you're bad, not because of a conspiracy. Again though, if you don't even try, who cares?
News flash: You are not in the ideological middle ground.I disagree. I have (happily) voted for the man elected President in every election I have been eligible to vote in (2004-present). How would an extremist do that?
You thought he was serious in those "...and as a Republican..." posts?I'm always serious, Methais. It is a fact that I am a Republican, and it says more about you people that this continues to be a point of contention.

[Warriorbird]

You thought he was serious in those "...and as a Republican..." posts?

I'm pretty sure he voted Republican before you were even politically active.

[Nieninque]

When the Affordable Care Act is not affordable I don't know how else you can characterize it other than an unmitigated disaster.

Surely that is the fault of the cuntbag employers who are deliberately setting the tariff too high for their staff?
Cunts

[~Rocktar~]

You totally seem balanced when you post like this.

The problem is jackass, I NEVER claim to be middle of the road or moderate. Unlike you and other self delusional mush heads, I don't make such retarded claims.

I am completely honest in saying I am fiscally conservative, not all that happy with the current crop of RINOs, seriously dislike the fanatic nutjobs and socially moderate. I actually believe the Republican party needs to come more toward the middle and get a divorce from the fanatic Religious Right. Then it could pick up more of the Regan Democrats and do more of what's right for America not push an outdated religious agenda for a middle eastern death cult.

[Tgo01]

Surely that is the fault of the cuntbag employers who are deliberately setting the tariff too high for their staff?
Cunts

Yes it is, but that was the point of this law right? To protect vulnerable citizens from the cunty employers?

[Warriorbird]

The problem is jackass, I NEVER claim to be middle of the road or moderate. Unlike you and other self delusional mush heads, I don't make such retarded claims.

I am completely honest in saying I am fiscally conservative, not all that happy with the current crop of RINOs, seriously dislike the fanatic nutjobs and socially moderate. I actually believe the Republican party needs to come more toward the middle and get a divorce from the fanatic Religious Right. Then it could pick up more of the Regan Democrats and do more of what's right for America not push an outdated religious agenda for a middle eastern death cult.

You're definitely seeming like you fit in with your peers and you're totally running for the middle too.

[Warriorbird]

Yes it is, but that was the point of this law right? To protect vulnerable citizens from the cunty employers?

No. The goal was to offer more coverage. You're buying into the Rocktar line that the Obama Administration is somehow against business or believing all the self aggrandizing douchebags who use this an excuse to fuck their employees and whine about it.

It's actually a huge boon to the soulless. It's sort of like Obama is the best President ever for the firearms industry.

[Tgo01]

No. The goal was to offer more coverage.

Yes...and if people don't get more coverage then the law has failed, yes?

[Thondalar]

No, Thondalar, what will happen is the free market will magically create a restauranteur who offers full time employment with benefits and therefore magically attracts the best workers and therefore magically makes the most. It's called economics.

I'm going to pretend like i'm oblivious to your jab at a free market economy, since what used to be a free market back when it was a good idea and actually worked hasn't existed in the United States since before either of us were born, and say that like most of your ilk you seem to live in a glorious world of sunshine and rainbows. Unfortunately, i'm not allowed the luxury of uneducated supposition. I live in the real world. I do business in modern America. I run a business that did 2 and a half million dollars in sales last year, as part of a larger business that did over 70 million dollars in sales last year, and would be WRECKED if we had to abide by Obamacare rules for full time employees. This isn't some political statement. This isn't my opinion. This is simple plus and minus. This is what's happening in the REAL WORLD.

Try it some time.

-Thond

[Latrinsorm]

I actually believe the Republican party needs to come more toward the middleLike me! :)
I'm going to pretend like i'm oblivious to your jab at a free market economy, since what used to be a free market back when it was a good idea and actually worked hasn't existed in the United States since before either of us were born, and say that like most of your ilk you seem to live in a glorious world of sunshine and rainbows. Unfortunately, i'm not allowed the luxury of uneducated supposition. I live in the real world. I do business in modern America. I run a business that did 2 and a half million dollars in sales last year, as part of a larger business that did over 70 million dollars in sales last year, and would be WRECKED if we had to abide by Obamacare rules for full time employees. This isn't some political statement. This isn't my opinion. This is simple plus and minus. This is what's happening in the REAL WORLD.

Try it some time.I have 303 Excel spreadsheets on this computer alone. If I say I'm a math man, I think you will agree. Show me your plus and minus, won't you?

[Thondalar]

Like me! :)I have 303 Excel spreadsheets on this computer alone. If I say I'm a math man, I think you will agree. Show me your plus and minus, won't you?

You want me to send you my current PnL with Obamacare cost projection? Sure. Obviously i'm not going to make it public knowledge, but give me your ema...seriously? You're kidding, right?

I've never thought of you as stupid, Latrin. Misguided, certainly.


-Thond

[Latrinsorm]

You're seriously asking if I would kid about math? It's like you don't even know me anymore.

[Tgo01]

Latrin only jokes about his political party affiliation, whether he is ClydeR and the silly notion that the Angel TV series was better than Buffy.

[Thondalar]

You're seriously asking if I would kid about math? It's like you don't even know me anymore.

I'm not thinking you're kidding about math. I'm thinking you're dumber than I thought if you believe i'm going to send you anything that I could potentially get fired for sending you.

-Thond

[Latrinsorm]

Who's gonna tell? Me? Anticor? The NSA? No, no, and no.

How hard is it to anonymize data? Blank out anything with a name, and in your email c/p that baseball thing I did before it and I guarantee nobody will read it far enough to get to the incriminating parts.

(Guarantee void in Tennessee.)

[Methais]

I'm pretty sure he voted Republican before you were even politically active.

Being ClydeR without the disguise doesn't count.

[Candor]

Being ClydeR without the disguise doesn't count.

Strange, no one ever puts on a Candor disguise and pretends to be me.

[Parkbandit]

The Obama administration will not penalize businesses that do not provide health insurance in 2014, the Treasury Department announced Tuesday.
Instead, it will delay enforcement of a major Affordable Care Act requirement that all employers with more than 50 employees provide coverage to their workers until 2015.
The administration said it would postpone the provision after hearing significant concerns from employers about the challenges of implementing it.
“We have heard concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively,” Mark Mazur, Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, wrote in a late Tuesday blog post (http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/Continuing-to-Implement-the-ACA-in-a-Careful-Thoughtful-Manner-.aspx). “We recognize that the vast majority of businesses that will need to do this reporting already provide health insurance to their workers, and we want to make sure it is easy for others to do so.”
The Affordable Care Act requires all employers with more than 50 full-time workers provide health insurance or pay steep fines. That policy had raised concerns about companies downsizing their workforce or cutting workers’ hours in order to dodge the new mandate.
In delaying the enforcement of that rule, the White House sidesteps those challenges for one year. It is also the second significant interruption for the Affordable Care Act, following a one-year delay on key functions of the small business insurance marketplaces.
Together, the moves could draw criticism that the administration will not be able to put into effect its signature legislative accomplishment on schedule.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/02/white-house-delays-employer-mandate-requirement-until-2015/?print=1

LOL. And it's just a coincidence that the "new" implimentation date is after the 2014 elections.

"There's no problems with Obamacare.. everything is fine!"

Suckers.

[Jarvan]

Well, I mean seriously.. they can't implement the Employer Mandate until after the 2014 elections. They don't want a landslide victory for Republicans. The Employee mandate was the only would that would have impacted people really next year. Individual still applies, and the effects of that likely wouldn't appear till 2015 anyway.

It's such an awesomely great bill.. they don't even want to enact it.

I wonder though.. since everything gets delayed with this bill.. is it still a zero increase on the debt like they claimed?

[Tgo01]

Couldn't believe it when I read that story. I was like...wow...this is such a piece of shit legislation that I can't believe anyone still thinks it's any good.

I think Democrats are suffering from Stockholm syndrome in regards to Obama.

[Tgo01]

So if they're only postponing the employer mandate and not the individual mandate does that mean employees are still required by law to get healthcare but their employer doesn't have to provide it?

Great thinking!

[Jarvan]

So if they're only postponing the employer mandate and not the individual mandate does that mean employees are still required by law to get healthcare but their employer doesn't have to provide it?

Great thinking!

Pretty much.

Tho they are still politely asking that employers provide insurance, they just are not going to fine them for not providing it.

[Parkbandit]

If this new law is so good for the economy and for the individual... Why the fuck would we want it delayed?? I know I could use lower healthcare costs for my businesses and my family... Affordable Healthcare Now!

Yes We Can!!!

4 More Years!!!

[Jarvan]

If this new law is so good for the economy and for the individual... Why the fuck would we want it delayed?? I know I could use lower healthcare costs for my businesses and my family... Affordable Healthcare Now!

Yes We Can!!!

4 More Years!!!

Do you mean 4 more years of waiting for it?

[~Rocktar~]

Well just think... if you and everyone out there like you had actually voted against Obama he would not be in office right now and you would not have anything to complain about.

Just think . . . If you and everyone like you out there actually posted in a constructive manner it might help things instad of your continued shitposting. Go post on reddit or kugu or something where you will fit in.

[Back]

Just think . . . If you and everyone like you out there actually posted in a constructive manner it might help things instad of your continued shitposting. Go post on reddit or kugu or something where you will fit in.

So lets see if I understand this.

I suggest that if someone wants to get something done they should vote.

You respond that I should post here in a more constructive manner to help things.

Sorry, I think voting beats posting in this case.

[Methais]

So lets see if I understand this.

I suggest that if someone wants to get something done they should vote.

You respond that I should post here in a more constructive manner to help things.

Sorry, I think voting beats posting in this case.

What are your thoughts on today's news about Obamacare delaying the employer mandate?

[Keller]

What are your thoughts on today's news about Obamacare delaying the employer mandate?

I think a ton of the senior leadership, including the people managing the health care guidance, forms, etc, have quit recently as a result of political pressure drummed up by the GOP.

I know a lot of folks who work (or worked) at IRS Chief Counsel. They are highly dedicated, competent, and hard working. It's a shame that the political process is forcing the good folks (the dedicated, competent, hard working ones that will have (or have had) no problem finding private sector employment) out of the IRS and leaving behind the leeches who have done only the bare minimum to not get fired for the last 20 years. There are still really good people left, but I'm not sure how much longer that will be true. They've lost a lot of their best folks.

[Parkbandit]

I think a ton of the senior leadership, including the people managing the health care guidance, forms, etc, have quit recently as a result of political pressure drummed up by the GOP.

lolwut? You realize this news has nothing to do with Obamacare management and everything to do with the negative effects of the implementation, right? This was done because of the effects the implementation will have on the economy and the negative press that will be exposed during an election year.. nothing more.



I know a lot of folks who work (or worked) at IRS Chief Counsel. They are highly dedicated, competent, and hard working. It's a shame that the political process is forcing the good folks (the dedicated, competent, hard working ones that will have (or have had) no problem finding private sector employment) out of the IRS and leaving behind the leeches who have done only the bare minimum to not get fired for the last 20 years. There are still really good people left, but I'm not sure how much longer that will be true. They've lost a lot of their best folks.

These highly dedicated, competent and hard working IRS agents... are they the ones specifically targeting Conservative groups?

[Keller]

lolwut? You realize this news has nothing to do with Obamacare management and everything to do with the negative effects of the implementation, right? This was done because of the effects the implementation will have on the economy and the negative press that will be exposed during an election year.. nothing more.

These highly dedicated, competent and hard working IRS agents... are they the ones specifically targeting Conservative groups?

You realize I know the people working (or people that worked) on this guidance, right? I just had lunch with a former IRS chief counsel employee who worked on one of the big regulation packages implementing Obamacare. She was very candid that, with IRS turn-over, it's very unlikely the mandate went live next year. I wouldn't be surprised if the individual mandate gets pushed back, too.

But I'm sure you're right. You've probably got better sources. Don't mind me. You can keep drinking the kool-aid.

[Keller]

And there is a gulf between service center employees and chief counsel employees. But you probably know all about that with your extensive knowledge of how the IRS works.

[Methais]

You realize I know the people working (or people that worked) on this guidance, right? I just had lunch with a former IRS chief counsel employee who worked on one of the big regulation packages implementing Obamacare. She was very candid that, with IRS turn-over, it's very unlikely the mandate went live next year. I wouldn't be surprised if the individual mandate gets pushed back, too.

But I'm sure you're right. You've probably got better sources. Don't mind me. You can keep drinking the kool-aid.

I think the problem here is the IRS being the ones running/enforcing/whatever our health care. Or maybe I'm just behind the times and stuck in that archaic belief of doctors and patients.

[Keller]

I think the problem here is the IRS being the ones running/enforcing/whatever our health care. Or maybe I'm just behind the times and stuck in that archaic belief of doctors and patients.

The IRS got it because everyone already hates the IRS. No reason to cause HHS to lose goodwill by being in charge of regulating Obamacare.

[Keller]

From today's Tax News Today:


Practitioner response to the announcement of the delay has been generally positive. "Employers have been working diligently to meet the requirements of the employer mandate," said Kendra L. Roberson of Covington & Burling LLP. "However, there are numerous unanswered questions for which additional guidance is needed. This announcement is certainly welcome relief for employers."

The practical challenges of implementing the information reporting and updating computer systems before 2014 would have been significant, Catherine E. Livingston of Jones Day said.


"The data exists, but employers do not know how to meet the reporting requirements without regulations," said Linda R. Mendel of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP.

[Tgo01]

This all seems very convenient, even down to this being blamed on Republicans.

[Parkbandit]

And there is a gulf between service center employees and chief counsel employees. But you probably know all about that with your extensive knowledge of how the IRS works.

I just sent an email to the GOP leadership, telling them to just forget about any IRS scandals that they think are going on.. because this guy named Dustin knows some IRS employees and he's assured me everything is on the up and up.

Thanks man, you've alleviated any distrust anyone has with the IRS by knowing some people who work there and vouching for them personally.

WHEW!

[Parkbandit]

Oh, John Boehner just replied.. he said "Dustin actually said that? I will move to stop any and all inquiries then and let him know I also will sleep better tonight, knowing he has vouched for the entire IRS because he once went to lunch with an IRS employee".

He also wanted to know if you could estimate the next crowd size in DC by walking from your apartment to Starbucks.. but I told him you moved. He sounded extremely upset about that news.

[Keller]

I just sent an email to the GOP leadership, telling them to just forget about any IRS scandals that they think are going on.. because this guy named Dustin knows some IRS employees and he's assured me everything is on the up and up.

Thanks man, you've alleviated any distrust anyone has with the IRS by knowing some people who work there and vouching for them personally.

WHEW!

You're testy when you're wrong.

[Back]

What are your thoughts on today's news about Obamacare delaying the employer mandate?

Honestly I have no idea. Not up to speed on this one. But I will say this. FUCK THE BANKS!

[Keller]

Oh, John Boehner just replied.. he said "Dustin actually said that? I will move to stop any and all inquiries then and let him know I also will sleep better tonight, knowing he has vouched for the entire IRS because he once went to lunch with an IRS employee".

He also wanted to know if you could estimate the next crowd size in DC by walking from your apartment to Starbucks.. but I told him you moved. He sounded extremely upset about that news.

What flavor kool-aid are they serving you, anyways? Is it any good?

[Parkbandit]

This all seems very convenient, even down to this being blamed on Republicans.

I guess the statute of limitations has run out on blaming Bush.

[tyrant-201]

I guess the statute of limitations has run out on blaming Bush.

I blame the government. It's all-encompassing.

[Parkbandit]

What flavor kool-aid are they serving you, anyways? Is it any good?

Irony.

[Keller]

Two things.

I never said the political pressure wasn't warranted. I think a full investigation is required. I think we need as much information as we can get about what occurred.

I never said people in the service centers weren't improperly targeting political groups applying for tax-exempt status. I'll make that determination once I know the information that is being gathered.

What I did say is that the political pressure put on the IRS has caused many talented people to leave, which has caused the massive regulatory push within the IRS to stall, which has caused a delay in the employer mandate because companies don't know how they are supposed to comply with the mandate because the regulations and forms are not out. It's sort of like asking people to file their individual income taxes without Form 1040 and the accompanying instructions. It would be a disaster.

Now, PB, you can continue your schtick of beating your chest and acting like you know the first thing about what you're talking about. Or, and I hope you do this for the sake of not looking more foolish, you can realize you're wrong and go grab a beer and enjoy the holiday weekend.

Your call man.

[Parkbandit]

Two things.

I never said the political pressure wasn't warranted. I think a full investigation is required. I think we need as much information as we can get about what occurred.

I never said people in the service centers weren't improperly targeting political groups applying for tax-exempt status. I'll make that determination once I know the information that is being gathered.

What I did say is that the political pressure put on the IRS has caused many talented people to leave, which has caused the massive regulatory push within the IRS to stall, which has caused a delay in the employer mandate because companies don't know how they are supposed to comply with the mandate because the regulations and forms are not out. It's sort of like asking people to file their individual income taxes without Form 1040 and the accompanying instructions. It would be a disaster.

Now, PB, you can continue your schtick of beating your chest and acting like you know the first thing about what you're talking about. Or, and I hope you do this for the sake of not looking more foolish, you can realize you're wrong and go grab a beer and enjoy the holiday weekend.

Your call man.

You initially blamed the GOP this... which was hilarious.

Let me ask you this:

Is your belief that this suspension of key aspects of Obamacare being delayed until January 2015 has nothing to do with the 2014 midterm elections and/or the negative effects this law will have on the economy and unemployment?

[Keller]

You initially blamed the GOP this... which was hilarious.

I know you don't like to read the words that are written, but instead choose to read the words you would like to have been written, but I didn't blame this on the GOP.

I blamed this on regulatory shortfalls as a result of the people leading the regulatory effort having resigned. I understand you'll say "but you said they quit because of political pressure drummed up by the GOP!" That is a fact, both in the sense that I said it and in the sense that that is why those people resigned. If you think that is "blame," then I guess you blame the GOP, too.

[Keller]

Is your belief that this suspension of key aspects of Obamacare being delayed until January 2015 has nothing to do with the 2014 midterm elections and/or the negative effects this law will have on the economy and unemployment?

It has a lot to do with the elections. If the employer mandate were implemented without regulatory guidance or forms, it would be a clusterfuck of epic proportions.

I don't mind you staying after class for extra questions, but if you'd pay attention during the lecture you'd have know that.

[Warriorbird]

I know you don't like to read the words that are written, but instead choose to read the words you would like to have been written, but I didn't blame this on the GOP.

I blamed this on regulatory shortfalls as a result of the people leading the regulatory effort having resigned. I understand you'll say "but you said they quit because of political pressure drummed up by the GOP!" That is a fact, both in the sense that I said it and in the sense that that is why those people resigned. If you think that is "blame," then I guess you blame the GOP, too.

Sometimes I really enjoy the politics folder.

[Parkbandit]

I know you don't like to read the words that are written, but instead choose to read the words you would like to have been written, but I didn't blame this on the GOP.

I blamed this on regulatory shortfalls as a result of the people leading the regulatory effort having resigned. I understand you'll say "but you said they quit because of political pressure drummed up by the GOP!" That is a fact, both in the sense that I said it and in the sense that that is why those people resigned. If you think that is "blame," then I guess you blame the GOP, too.

I don't think "because of political pressure drummed up by the GOP" means what you think it means. It's placing blame squarely on one party.

There is only one place to blame the issues that the IRS is having.. it's with the IRS.

[Back]

So BriWi just told me that the president announced a one year delay in requiring about 4% of small businesses to provide health insurance.

Who is upset by this again?

[Keller]

I don't think "because of political pressure drummed up by the GOP" means what you think it means. It's placing blame squarely on one party.

There is only one place to blame the issues that the IRS is having.. it's with the IRS.

What is the point you are trying to make?

I was under the impression we were talking about delaying the employer mandate. You thought it was a political maneuver, I informed you it was because the government wasn't prepared to roll out the mandate.

Are we on the same page now?

[Parkbandit]

It has a lot to do with the elections. If the employer mandate were implemented without regulatory guidance or forms, it would be a clusterfuck of epic proportions.

I don't mind you staying after class for extra questions, but if you'd pay attention during the lecture you'd have know that.

Could you quote the post in this thread where you stated that this has a lot to do with the elections? I mean heck, maybe the forums are bugging out and your post was inadvertently deleted. You might want to contact Kranar and let him know the issue.

If you want to lecture, make sure you know your own material next time.

[Parkbandit]

What is the point you are trying to make?

I was under the impression we were talking about delaying the employer mandate. You thought it was a political maneuver, I informed you it was because the government wasn't prepared to roll out the mandate.

Are we on the same page now?

So, you went from its because the GOP created the IRS crisis and the hard working people left the IRS, to it has a lot to do with the elections.. to back because the government isn't ready yet?

Fantastic.

[Tgo01]

Who is upset by this again?

Not Democrats.

[liloldman]

If the employer mandate were implemented without regulatory guidance or forms, it would be a clusterfuck of epic proportions.

I don't mind you staying after class for extra questions, but if you'd pay attention during the lecture you'd have know that.

Are you saying it is not going to be a government run cluster fuck anyway?

[Latrinsorm]

All I know is that someday America is going to have another recession and no matter how long it takes or what events intervene, it will be 100% the fault of President Obama and Obamacare.

[Methais]

I blame the government. It's all-encompassing.

But Obama said that government is the solution to our problems.

I'M SO CONFUSED NOW!

[Methais]

What is the point you are trying to make?

I was under the impression we were talking about delaying the employer mandate. You thought it was a political maneuver, I informed you it was because the government wasn't prepared to roll out the mandate.

Are we on the same page now?

I think it's more of they're realizing what a disaster this bill is, and they know that people are going to shit all over it no matter how "prepared" the government is. They figure if they can keep the low info crowd in the dark long enough to hopefully win the house in 2014, then they can tell everyone to eat shit after because by then it will be too late for people to do anything about it and won't matter.



All I know is that someday America is going to have another recession and no matter how long it takes or what events intervene, it will be 100% the fault of President Obama and Obamacare.

It'll still be Bush's fault, don't be silly.

[Jarvan]

Two things.

I never said the political pressure wasn't warranted. I think a full investigation is required. I think we need as much information as we can get about what occurred.

I never said people in the service centers weren't improperly targeting political groups applying for tax-exempt status. I'll make that determination once I know the information that is being gathered.

What I did say is that the political pressure put on the IRS has caused many talented people to leave, which has caused the massive regulatory push within the IRS to stall, which has caused a delay in the employer mandate because companies don't know how they are supposed to comply with the mandate because the regulations and forms are not out. It's sort of like asking people to file their individual income taxes without Form 1040 and the accompanying instructions. It would be a disaster.

Now, PB, you can continue your schtick of beating your chest and acting like you know the first thing about what you're talking about. Or, and I hope you do this for the sake of not looking more foolish, you can realize you're wrong and go grab a beer and enjoy the holiday weekend.

Your call man.

It's funny, ONLY the US Gov could have 4 years to write up codes and regulations, and implement a system.. and fail to meet the deadline.

It's like the bridge they are rebuilding where I live. it took the state 3 years to tear down and rebuild a 1000 foot bridge. During that same time, not 20 miles away, a private company tore down and rebuilt a bridge of similar size in about 5 months. They needed it done, because the bridge was the only way to get to their quarry and work area. They paid for it themselves.

Private company - On time and on Budget
Government - 3 years overdue and 5x the budget.

So really.. is it any surprise that the Government still doesn't know what the fuck they are doing with a law as complex as the one they created?


What is the point you are trying to make?

I was under the impression we were talking about delaying the employer mandate. You thought it was a political maneuver, I informed you it was because the government wasn't prepared to roll out the mandate.

Are we on the same page now?

The fact that they are delaying until AFTER the elections is a political maneuver. Hell, they still have 5 months to implement it.. I am sure they could do it if they wanted.

[Tgo01]

It's funny, ONLY the US Gov could have 4 years to write up codes and regulations, and implement a system.. and fail to meet the deadline.

Come on man, pay attention. The political pressure from the past 2 months put them at least 1 year behind.

[Keller]

So, you went from its because the GOP created the IRS crisis and the hard working people left the IRS, to it has a lot to do with the elections.. to back because the government isn't ready yet?

Fantastic.

Nope. Never said it had anything to do with the GOP creating an IRS crisis. Next question?

[Keller]

Come on man, pay attention. The political pressure from the past 2 months put them at least 1 year behind.

To get any major guidance approved at the IRS, you've got to have about 25 different signatures from officials within the IRS and Treasury. A lot of the people that had been working on this guidance, who were intimately familiar with its contents and the reasons for its very precise drafting, are no longer with the organization. So now you've got a different group of folks in charge who have their own ideas on how the guidance should be drafted. I wouldn't be surprised if it put them more than a year behind.

[Keller]

It's funny, ONLY the US Gov could have 4 years to write up codes and regulations, and implement a system.. and fail to meet the deadline.

It's like the bridge they are rebuilding where I live. it took the state 3 years to tear down and rebuild a 1000 foot bridge. During that same time, not 20 miles away, a private company tore down and rebuilt a bridge of similar size in about 5 months. They needed it done, because the bridge was the only way to get to their quarry and work area. They paid for it themselves.

Private company - On time and on Budget
Government - 3 years overdue and 5x the budget.

So really.. is it any surprise that the Government still doesn't know what the fuck they are doing with a law as complex as the one they created?

The fact that they are delaying until AFTER the elections is a political maneuver. Hell, they still have 5 months to implement it.. I am sure they could do it if they wanted.

No doubt the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare.

Not sure how your first few paragraphs jives with your last. Seems like you took a complete 180 for the sake of trying to sustain the mainstream conservative media's talking point. Either the IRS is a bureaucratic mess and it takes a long time get things produced and approved, especially with significant leadership/management turnover, or they should just be able to pump this out in 5 months. It is one or the other, but not both.

[Jarvan]

No doubt the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare.

Not sure how your first few paragraphs jives with your last. Seems like you took a complete 180 for the sake of trying to sustain the mainstream conservative media's talking point. Either the IRS is a bureaucratic mess and it takes a long time get things produced and approved, especially with significant leadership/management turnover, or they should just be able to pump this out in 5 months. It is one or the other, but not both.

No, I think they jive fine. They should be able to have gotten this done in 4 years. There is no need for the bureaucratic mess.

There was a good line from Contact.. "why build one when you can build two for twice the cost"

When it comes to government tho.. "why have 1 employee do something, when you can have 10 do it in 8x the time."

[Parkbandit]

Nope. Never said it had anything to do with the GOP creating an IRS crisis. Next question?

drum up

a.to call or summon by, or as if by, beating a drum.

b.to obtain or create (customers, trade, interest, etc.) through vigorous effort: They were unableto drum up enthusiasm for the new policies.

c.to concoct; devise: to drum up new methods of dealing with urban crime.


So, you went from its because the GOP drummed up the IRS crisis and the hard working people left the IRS, to it has a lot to do with the elections.. to back because the government isn't ready yet?

[Parkbandit]

Maybe the IRS should stop paying 201 employees to work on union activities and actually work for the IRS instead?

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/13/foia-201-irs-employees-work-full-time-on-union-business/

In a response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from Americans for Limited Government, the Internal Revenue Service revealed this month that 201 of its employees work full-time on union activities.
“A lot of people are not aware that under federal law, a federal agency is allowed to enter into a collective bargaining agreement with a union that has provisions where employees of the agency, in this case the IRS, are allowed to do union work on the taxpayer’s time and get paid for it,” ALG president and Nathan Mehrens explained in an interview with The Daily Caller.
As Office of Personnel Management documents explain, the performance of union duties instead of official government business is allowed, as it is a part of the government’s collective bargaining system.
“‘Official time,’ authorized by 5 U.S.C. 7131, is a core component of the federal government’s carefully crafted collective bargaining system,” OPM explains in its most recent “Official Time Usage in the Federal Government” report (http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/labor-management-relations/reports-on-official-time/#url=2011). “Official time is time spent by Federal employees performing representational work for a bargaining unit in lieu of their regularly assigned work. It allows unions to satisfy their duty of fair representation to members and non-members alike.”
“In our opinion it is something that shouldn’t be allowed,” Mehrens, a former Department of Labor attorney under President George W. Bush, said.
“It is a subsidy to a private entity to do the private entity’s job,” he added. “Why should we as taxpayers be paying for this? It is not as if taxpayers are paying to subsidize my organization.”
The redacted list of 201 IRS employees, whose names have been blacked out, features only those employees who are entirely engaged in union work. The list does not include employees who spend part of their time on government work and other portions on union work, according to ALG.
The list of 201 employees offers job titles, salary information, and some location information. The job titles appear innocuous and make the work appear to be focused on agency business rather than union business. Titles include “Internal Revenue Agent,” “Revenue Officer,” “Tax Specialist,” “Rev Officer,” “Clerk,” “Contact Representative,” “Case Advocate,” and the like. Some boast six-figure salaries, with the highest paid employee on the list earning $138,092.
Mehrens explained that in many cases employees are hired for a certain job classification but end up doing union work.
“This person was hired to file things,” Mehrens said of one of the employees listed on the documents under the job title “File Clerk.” ”But instead of filing things this person is doing union work. So somebody else presumably has to pick up the slack and handle that. There is not a job classification for ‘union steward’… so they are in these positions and instead of actually doing the work that would fit the job classification they are basically excused from doing that job in order to work on behalf of the union.”

[Tgo01]

Maybe I'm just stupid but I thought part of the reason for union dues was they used those dues to hire people to do union work full time?

That and also use that money to buy multimillion dollar golf courses and shit.

[Jarvan]

Maybe I'm just stupid but I thought part of the reason for union dues was they used those dues to hire people to do union work full time?

That and also use that money to buy multimillion dollar golf courses and shit.

That and also use that money to buy politicians to get into office and then give them insanely lucrative deals.

[Back]

Maybe I'm just stupid but I thought part of the reason for union dues was they used those dues to hire people to do union work full time?

That and also use that money to buy multimillion dollar golf courses and shit.

On the golf course thing you may be thinking of our own military. Some crazy amount of our tax dollars go to maintaining multiple golf courses across the country. Not a judgement. Just a fact.

[Tgo01]

On the golf course thing you may be thinking of our own military. Some crazy amount of our tax dollars go to maintaining multiple golf courses across the country. Not a judgement. Just a fact.

Yup. I can't believe how many VA hospitals have golf courses. To be fair the golf course at the VA near me looks like they spend 10 dollars a month to maintain though.

But no, I'm talking about the UAW (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/us-usa-autos-union-property-idUSTRE78L29Y20110922) owning a piece of land with a golf course on it valued at 34 million dollars that they of course have to keep paying to maintain. Let's not forget their 17 million dollar headquarters, because y'know, big corporations are greedy and evil.

[Latrinsorm]

The job titles appear innocuousBut those are just the kind of job titles a guilty person would use. If they were really innocent, they wouldn't have to sound innocent. So says Cly... uh... nevermind.
That and also use that money to buy politicians to get into office and then give them insanely lucrative deals.I kind of wish we had strict campaign spending limits just so this silly paranoia would abate (to some extent).

[Keller]

So, you went from its because the GOP drummed up the IRS crisis and the hard working people left the IRS, to it has a lot to do with the elections.. to back because the government isn't ready yet?

Nope.

[Parkbandit]

So, you went from its because the GOP drummed up the IRS crisis and the hard working people left the IRS, to it has a lot to do with the elections.. to back because the government isn't ready yet?



Nope.

07-03-2013, 03:56 PM
I think a ton of the senior leadership, including the people managing the health care guidance, forms, etc, have quit recently as a result of political pressure drummed up by the GOP.


07-03-2013, 06:12 PM
It has a lot to do with the elections.

07-03-2013, 06:45 PM
because the government wasn't prepared to roll out the mandate.


http://www.alpinesun.net/files/QuickSiteImages/wtf-animated.gif

[Keller]

Always said it was because leadership left. Not sure why you are having such a hard time understanding that. If you think the reason those individuals left is to blame, then you are entitled to blame that.

[Jarvan]

Apparently now the Government also decided it will not investigate possible fraud with exchanges and subsidies until 2015 either.

I mean, there is NO WAY this could be political right? It has to just be a coincidence. Why would DEMS not want to investigate fraud? What could they possibly have to gain?

[Koah]

TL;DR

A company can legally charge 9.5% for their healthcare plan to their employees. 9.5% of a 20,000 dollar salary is 1,900 dollars, most workers making 20k a year don't have 2k a year laying around for health insurance. Even if they did many of these plans have a 3k a year deductible before the insurance kicks in meaning employees making 20k a year would have to pay 5k (or one fourth of their income) before they get any use at all out of their insurance.

Since the company offered an "affordable" plan to their employees the employees aren't eligible for any government assistance in obtaining healthcare. If employee can't afford the "affordable" healthcare offered by their employers then they can't receive any government assistance, if they can't receive any government assistance they now have to pay a fine for not having health insurance since it's the law that everyone must have health insurance.
[/QUOTE]

So why isn't the question 'why is the employee only being paid 20k a year for full time work?'

[Back]

You guys do know that this plan will reduce the deficit. Right?

[Tgo01]

You guys do know that this plan will reduce the deficit. Right?

I'll admit, I laughed.

[Back]

I'll admit, I laughed.

The congressional budget office has projected that it will reduce the deficit. Are you laughing because you don't want to believe it?

[Latrinsorm]

Static accounting fail, Backlash. You forgot that everything Obama does will push business owners to, um... Russia? Someplace foreign, anyway, and the free market dictates that no one will take their place creating jobs and we'll all just be sitting around in squalor with no jobs and no money, because that's what we all decided happened to Rome, and therefore the deficit will increase.

It's like you never even took an economics class, sheesh! They cover this on the first day, word for word, prove me wrong.

[Methais]

The congressional budget office has projected that it will reduce the deficit. Are you laughing because you don't want to believe it?

http://24.media.tumblr.com/034f1e5e30a2961525f2d7287852d7fb/tumblr_mls60iApgZ1qifm00o1_500.gif
http://24.media.tumblr.com/93ccde98e8091810bce932af520bf0bd/tumblr_mls60iApgZ1qifm00o2_500.gif

[Tgo01]

The congressional budget office has projected that it will reduce the deficit. Are you laughing because you don't want to believe it?

Wasn't that with like receiving 10 years of taxes but only counting 6 years of spending? Or something like that? I don't know, I can't keep up with Washington fancy talk these days.

[Back]

Static accounting fail, Backlash. You forgot that everything Obama does will push business owners to, um... Russia? Someplace foreign, anyway, and the free market dictates that no one will take their place creating jobs and we'll all just be sitting around in squalor with no jobs and no money, because that's what we all decided happened to Rome, and therefore the deficit will increase.

It's like you never even took an economics class, sheesh! They cover this on the first day, word for word, prove me wrong.

You mean like how republicans WANT a huge deficit so they can raise the alarms and cry about big government so they can get tax cuts for Wall Street? Don't need an education to see through that shit.

[Back]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/034f1e5e30a2961525f2d7287852d7fb/tumblr_mls60iApgZ1qifm00o1_500.gif
http://24.media.tumblr.com/93ccde98e8091810bce932af520bf0bd/tumblr_mls60iApgZ1qifm00o2_500.gif

So you like to align yourself with one of the biggest assholes in movie history? You're not that big of an asshole. And I'll take that as a compliment. McFly is McFly, yo.

[Latrinsorm]

Why don't you make like a tree and attempt to sexually assault your mother?

[Back]

Why don't you make like a tree and attempt to sexually assault your mother?

Leave it to Latrin to point out the most awkward part of one of the greatest movie trilogies of all time.

[Latrinsorm]

This thread's topic is now Back to the Future, and I encourage you to read this page by page review (http://btothef.tumblr.com/tagged/bttf/chrono) of the novelization. This thread's topic is now also Leloo's Awesome Book Club, and has been tagged appropriately.

[Parkbandit]

You guys do know that this plan will reduce the deficit. Right?
http://www.nastyhobbit.org/forum/animated_gifs/lolcano.gif


The congressional budget office has projected that it will reduce the deficit. Are you laughing because you don't want to believe it?

http://gifs.gifbin.com/012010/1264091579_kirk_rofl.gif

[Tgo01]

Obamacare Struggles To Meet Make-Or-Break Deadline (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/14/obamacare-deadline_n_3594258.html)


WASHINGTON, July 14 (Reuters) - With time running out, U.S. officials are struggling to cope with the task of launching the new online health insurance exchanges at the heart of President Barack Obama's signature health reforms by an Oct. 1 deadline.

The White House, and federal agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), must ensure that working marketplaces open for enrollment in all 50 states in less than 80 days, and are responding to mounting pressure by concentrating on three essential areas that will determine whether the most critical phase of Obamacare succeeds or fails.

"The administration right now is in a triage mode. Seriously, they do not have the resources to implement all of the provisions on time," Washington and Lee University professor Timothy Jost, a healthcare reform expert and advocate, told an oversight panel in the U.S. House of Representatives last week.

Current and former administration officials, independent experts and business representatives say the three priorities are the creation of an online portal that will make it easy for consumers to compare insurance plans and enroll in coverage; the capacity to effectively process and deliver government subsidies that help consumers pay for the insurance; and retention of the law's individual mandate, which requires nearly all Americans to have health insurance when Obama's healthcare reform law comes into full force in 2014.

Measures deemed less essential, such as making larger employers provide health insurance to their full-time workers next year or face fines, and requiring exchanges to verify the health insurance and income status of applicants, have already been postponed or scaled back.

"The closer you get to the actual launch, the more you focus on what is essential versus what could be second-order issues," said a former administration official. "That concentrates the mind in a different kind of way, and that's what's happening here."

But the risk of failure in the form of major delays is palpable, given the administration's limited staff and financial resources, as well as the stubborn political opposition of Republicans, who have denied new money for the effort in Congress and prevented dozens of states from cooperating with initiatives that offer subsidized health coverage to millions of lower income uninsured people.

Any further delay could help Republicans make Obamacare's troubles a focus of their campaign in next year's congressional midterm elections and in the 2016 presidential race.

HHS denies that its strategy has changed and insists that implementation continues to meet the milestones laid out by planners 18 months ago.

"All of the systems are exactly where we want them to be today. They will be ready to perform fully on Oct. 1," said Mike Hash, director of the HHS Office of Health Reform.

White House officials acknowledge the approach of the open enrollment deadline has put a greater emphasis on priorities. They describe the strategy as a "smart, adaptive policy" and assert that delayed or scaled-back regulations demonstrate better policy decisions or flexibility with stakeholders, rather than a need to minimize distractions.

NO MARGIN FOR ERROR

Advocates point out that the reform, formally titled the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and informally known as Obamacare, constitutes the most sweeping healthcare legislation since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid, large successful government programs for the elderly and the low income that also faced fierce political opposition when they were created in 1965. Both required years of work after their launch to refine implementation.

The administration has already delayed or scaled back at least half a dozen health reform measures since last year. These include regulations involving star quality ratings for insurance company plans, the choice of insurance plans for small-business employees and a requirement that state Medicaid agencies notify indivduals of their eligibility for federal assistance.

Other efforts that could still be delayed include deadlines for some health insurers to get their plans certified by HHS as well as requirements for how the insurance exchanges provide customer service.

House Speaker John Boehner and other House Republican leaders, warning of a "train wreck", have called on Obama to defer an essential task: the individual mandate, which requires people to have insurance coverage in 2014 or face penalties that begin modestly, but rise sharply by 2016.

But experts say it is the other essential tasks - establishing the high-tech capabilities necessary to process government insurance subsidies and create online shopping and enrollment for consumers - that could be most vulnerable with such a compressed timetable.

"The biggest hurdle is to get the systems up and running," said one health insurance official. "Nothing's happened so far that prevents you from being up and running on Oct. 1. But there's virtually no margin for error."

The administration is working according to an ambitious schedule for testing a technology hub and its ability to transfer consumer data on health coverage, income, tax credits and other topics between federal agencies, insurance companies and states. The hub is already exchanging data between the necessary agencies.

A report from Georgetown University's Center on Health Insurance Reforms says state-run exchanges are on track for a successful Oct. 1 launch and have exceeded federal minimum requirements in some cases.

Failure to have adequate systems in place by Sept. 4, when HHS is due to give insurers final notice about which health plans are qualified to be sold on 34 state exchanges run by the federal government, could delay open enrollment by days or weeks but still allow the law's core reform provisions to take effect on Jan. 1, experts said.

Insurers will have several days in August to review plan data as it would be presented to prospective enrollees in side-by-side comparisons online. The administration also needs to test the system with a wider audience than the IT experts working on the exchanges to make sure they are consumer-friendly.

Michael Marchand, spokesman for Washington's Health Benefit Exchange, said the state's online marketplace had conducted frequent tests with the federal data hub, which had worked well so far. But any last-minute changes to the government's requirements to its operations could throw a wrench into the IT system, he said.

"If you start adding or removing lines of code it could bring the whole thing down," he said. "As you add or take away pieces, you have to re-test from the beginning." (Additional reporting by Patrick Temple-West in Washington and Sharon Begley in New York; Editing by Michele Gershberg, Martin Howell)

[Keller]

Sounds like a cover story for delaying this job-killing legislation from taking effect until after the mid-term elections.

[Atlanteax]

and the Obamacare casualties continue:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/16/smallbusiness/doctors-selling-practices/index.html?iid=HP_LN

[Jarvan]

Even Obamacare doesn't want full-time employees...

http://www.contracostatimes.com/rss/ci_23733819

Get hired for full time, get told you are part time, and have to pay 600-1200 a month for health coverage. Thanks Obama!

[Tgo01]

Shit, those call center jobs pays 18 bucks an hour?

Also stop being racist Jarvan, everything is fine with Obamacare.

[Jarvan]

Shit, those call center jobs pays 18 bucks an hour?

Also stop being racist Jarvan, everything is fine with Obamacare.

Actually, yes, they do. I hear they pay up to 25 in CA.

[Atlanteax]

http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/06/news/economy/obamacare-premiums/index.html?iid=Lead

Looks like Republicans will not have to worry about not winning Ohio & Florida in the next election...

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/130802171131-obamacare-premiums-rise-620xa.jpg

[Parkbandit]

The source of that is BIG INSURANCE!

And I wouldn't be too sure about Republicans coasting to easy wins in those states. They haven't won either of those states since 2004.

[ClydeR]

The exchanges open in less than two months.

https://www.healthcare.gov/quick-answers/#step-1

[Parkbandit]

The Health Insurance MarketplaceYou may be eligible to get quality health insurance through the Health Insurance Marketplace. But based on the information you provided, you probably won’t qualify to save money on your monthly premiums or out-of-pocket costs. You'll find out for sure when you apply for coverage starting October 1, 2013.

http://trailblazer1.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/thumbs_up.jpg

[Methais]

http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/06/news/economy/obamacare-premiums/index.html?iid=Lead

Looks like Republicans will not have to worry about not winning Ohio & Florida in the next election...

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/130802171131-obamacare-premiums-rise-620xa.jpg

Don't underestimate the stupidity of the average voter.

Plus there will still be other voters to worry about, like all those dead voters that see to always make it to the polls and vote democrat.

[cwolff]

Plus there will still be other voters to worry about, like all those dead voters that see to always make it to the polls and vote democrat.

What dead voters? Election fraud like this is just not happening. Post some examples of where it does happen with links that substantiate these claims.

[cwolff]

Here are some dead guys we have to worry about screwing our elections.

http://now.msn.com/mitch-mcconnell-pac-donation-comes-from-bob-perry-deceased-supporter

[Latrinsorm]

Don't underestimate the stupidity of the average voter.This is actually a very interesting retort for several reasons:

1. We can be reasonably sure Barack Obama will not be running for President in 2016. Unless whoever the candidate is declares that they will do exactly what Obama would, should a voter take Obama's actions into account when judging them?
2. If a voter does something not in their own immediate self-interest, is that stupid?
3. Is deciding whom to vote for entirely on the basis of paying higher insurance premiums stupid? For instance, if the Demdidate does make the above declaration and the Repreplicant declares that they will do exactly what Hitler would, certainly you would agree the smart play is for the war criminal who is black on the basis of the John Cutter Doctrine: always bet on black.

[cwolff]

I'm not sure what people are complaining about Obama for. The stock market is up, interest rates are still down, Corporate profits are sky high, taxes are still suppressed, minimum wage is lagging inflation, the sequestration has held up, federal employment is low and now SCOTUS has gutted the Voters Rights Act.

Obama's presidency has been a republican's wet dream.

[Tgo01]

I'm not sure what people are complaining about Obama for. The stock market is up, interest rates are still down, Corporate profits are sky high, taxes are still suppressed, minimum wage is lagging inflation, the sequestration has held up, federal employment is low and now SCOTUS has gutted the Voters Rights Act.

Obama's presidency has been a republican's wet dream.

So why are Democrats in love with him then?

[Methais]

This is actually a very interesting retort for several reasons:

1. We can be reasonably sure Barack Obama will not be running for President in 2016. Unless whoever the candidate is declares that they will do exactly what Obama would, should a voter take Obama's actions into account when judging them?
2. If a voter does something not in their own immediate self-interest, is that stupid?
3. Is deciding whom to vote for entirely on the basis of paying higher insurance premiums stupid? For instance, if the Demdidate does make the above declaration and the Repreplicant declares that they will do exactly what Hitler would, certainly you would agree the smart play is for the war criminal who is black on the basis of the John Cutter Doctrine: always bet on black.

It's more along the lines of voters like this:

Person: Hey, did you know that Mitt Romney hates the environment and wants us to drink dirty water and that Paul Ryan wants grandma to die?

Idiot voter: Really? OMG what an asshole I'm voting for Obama!

OR (just to be fair)

Person: Hey, did you know that Obama is secretly an Al-Qaeda operative?

Idiot voter: OMFG HE'S GOING TO IMPLEMENT SHARIA LAW AND KILL US ALL I'M VOTING ROMNEY!!!!!1

[Methais]

What dead voters? Election fraud like this is just not happening. Post some examples of where it does happen with links that substantiate these claims.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Dead-and-Still-Voting-177286281.html

[Tgo01]

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Dead-and-Still-Voting-177286281.html

It's at this point the typical Democrat will say "Well yeah but that's SUCH A SMALL NUMBER!"

[cwolff]

Fight the Fear TG. Giving in to the hype helps no one.

[Tgo01]

It's at this point the typical Democrat will say "Well yeah but that's SUCH A SMALL NUMBER!"


Fight the Fear TG. Giving in to the hype helps no one.

Close enough.

[cwolff]

Take a few minutes and compose a cogent argument.

We "purged" the voter roles in Colorado because of a fear of voter fraud. The secretary of the state of colorado initially said there were 11million non-citizens on the voter roles. He sent letters to 4,000 telling them to confirm their citizenship. Ultimately there were only 141 non-citizens in a state with a population of 3.5 million voters. Florida had a similar experience.

There's no smoke and there's no fire. Just republican politicians abusing their positions to fuck with hispanics. If anyone should be outraged about this it should be the right.

[Tgo01]

It's at this point the typical Democrat will say "Well yeah but that's SUCH A SMALL NUMBER!"


We "purged" the voter roles in Colorado because of a fear of voter fraud. The secretary of the state of colorado initially said there were 11million non-citizens on the voter roles. He sent letters to 4,000 telling them to confirm their citizenship. Ultimately there were only 141 non-citizens in a state with a population of 3.5 million voters.

It's like you're trying to now prove my point.

Is election fraud not that big of a deal as long as it's just a small number that can be proven or what?

[cwolff]

The system we have in place is damn near flawless. Of all the things our government does this one works. It's obviously not broken yet the right is hell bent on fixing it. As an American citizen how can you not be enraged by this? Don't you care about things like the bill of rights?

Put the Kool-Aid down and wake up to smell the coffee. We need educated voters. I encourage you to get educated. I know it'll be uncomfortable and you have my sympathy but it's worth the effort.

[Tgo01]

It's obviously not broken yet the right is hell bent on fixing it.

Dead people and non US citizens are voting and you're saying the system is not broken? Are you for real?

Isn't that the exact kind of shit we make fun of "third world" countries for when it comes to their elections?

[Latrinsorm]

This is how fearmongering works, yes. They want to get you up in arms about $2m a year to NPR while they spend billions on unneeded, unwanted, outdated military vehicles. They want to get you up in arms about 0.004% of the vote in one state so you don't blame them for their own electoral shortcomings: "we didn't lose, the other guys cheated!"

Personally I don't think They have had a hit since 1966, so I don't know why you find the Them so compelling.

[Tgo01]

It's at this point the typical Democrat will say "Well yeah but that's SUCH A SMALL NUMBER!"


They want to get you up in arms about 0.004% of the vote in one state

It's like I can see the future! Selling lotto numbers, one million silvers per set of six!

[Parkbandit]

Dead people and non US citizens are voting and you're saying the system is not broken? Are you for real?

Isn't that the exact kind of shit we make fun of "third world" countries for when it comes to their elections?

The easy way to fix this is to have a government photo ID required when you vote.. just like you have to show an ID to get alcohol, a place to live, welfare, unemployment, etc...

But, if you ask for an ID, you somehow hate minorities........

[Latrinsorm]

It's like I can see the future! Selling lotto numbers, one million per set of six!The correct phrasing would be seeing the past. cwolff never said election fraud is just not happening full stop. cwolff said fraud like this is not happening, implying that there is some happening but it is a negligible amount.

If you mean that you are well aware that election fraud is a phony, fabricated issue and were trolling by pretending you didn't, that could also be correct.

[Latrinsorm]

The easy way to fix this is to have a government photo ID required when you vote.. just like you have to show an ID to get alcohol, a place to live, welfare, unemployment, etc...

But, if you ask for an ID, you somehow hate minorities........This is what crb would call a static accounting fail, if he ever considered criticizing positions he agreed with.

It is not immediately apparent why asking for an ID would disproportionately effect minorities, but it was immediately apparent to Descartes that the Christian God existed. Hence, judging by what is immediately apparent has been repeatedly wrong in the past, you should not do it now. There are many sources of data (not appearance, data) available to you if you would like to investigate this issue empirically rather than going by your gut reaction.

[Tgo01]

The correct phrasing would be seeing the past.

But yet two people came along and said pretty much exactly what I said they would say. That's the future man, the future!


cwolff never said election fraud is just not happening full stop. cwolff said fraud like this is not happening, implying that there is some happening but it is a negligible amount.


Plus there will still be other voters to worry about, like all those dead voters that see to always make it to the polls and vote democrat.


What dead voters? Election fraud like this is just not happening. Post some examples of where it does happen with links that substantiate these claims.

Sure sounds like cwolff is saying dead people don't vote. Methais never specified any numbers, he just said it happens. If cwolff meant it didn't happen much (which is hilarious because that's what I said would happen) then why didn't he specify that in a conversation where volume wasn't mentioned up until that point?


If you mean that you are well aware that election fraud is a phony, fabricated issue and were trolling by pretending you didn't, that could also be correct.

Where was it proven that election fraud is phony? Just because someone mentioned kool aid, Republicans, and (LOL!) educated voters doesn't mean election fraud doesn't happen.

[cwolff]

Where was it proven that election fraud is phony? Just because someone mentioned kool aid, Republicans, and (LOL!) educated voters doesn't mean election fraud doesn't happen.

Florida and Colorado. Both states had a republican sec state who made a big stink over election fraud prior to the Nov. '12 election and both were proven wrong. They also both targeted citizens with hispanic last names who were likely democrats. It's fucking shameful and every patriotic American should be pissed about this kind of abuse, even if it comes from the party with which you identify the most strongly.


Sure sounds like cwolff is saying dead people don't vote. Methais never specified any numbers, he just said it happens. If cwolff meant it didn't happen much (which is hilarious because that's what I said would happen) then why didn't he specify that in a conversation where volume wasn't mentioned up until that point?

It's sad that you sink to such a juvenile level. Really sad. I hope that you are just trolling on here for attention but am concerned that you actually think you're engaging in intelligent debate.

[Thondalar]

Not to bring us back on topic or anything, but I read a great news article the other day, was just an AP article so i'm sure it was published in many papers, and can probably be found online, but i'm fucking lazy...

Anyway, basically it was a write-up of the jobs added in the last year or so. I don't like to gloat, or say "I told you so"...oh, wait, I do. The vast majority of the jobs added are low wage, part-time jobs....which is EXACTLY what I said would happen 2 months ago in this very thread!

Obamacare and a rising minimum wage will destroy full-time employment in the industries that employ MOST Americans. It's ALREADY happening, just from the THREAT of Obamacare. Imagine how bad it will be when it goes into full effect.

[Tgo01]

Florida and Colorado. Both states had a republican sec state who made a big stink over election fraud prior to the Nov. '12 election and both were proven wrong. They also both targeted citizens with hispanic last names who were likely democrats. It's fucking shameful and every patriotic American should be pissed about this kind of abuse, even if it comes from the party with which you identify the most strongly.

I'll ask again; where was it proven that election fraud is phony?

Also earlier you said:


The secretary of the state of colorado initially said there were 11million non-citizens on the voter roles. He sent letters to 4,000 telling them to confirm their citizenship. Ultimately there were only 141 non-citizens in a state with a population of 3.5 million voters. Florida had a similar experience.

Am I just totally reading this wrong or is it saying 141 non-citizens were on the voter roles? Isn't that voter fraud?


It's sad that you sink to such a juvenile level.


Put the Kool-Aid down and wake up to smell the coffee. We need educated voters. I encourage you to get educated. I know it'll be uncomfortable and you have my sympathy but it's worth the effort.

Thanks for the laugh.

[cwolff]

Obamacare and a rising minimum wage will destroy full-time employment in the industries that employ MOST Americans. It's ALREADY happening, just from the THREAT of Obamacare. Imagine how bad it will be when it goes into full effect.

You're information's not wrong (Minimum wage is rising at a slow enough rate that it is essentially falling or maybe a better way to state it is that it's failing to keep up which amounts to the same thing as a decline over the years so that part was wrong.) but your conclusions are incomplete at best. You're seeing an effect then extrapolating to what appears to be the likely cause. It's a good start but you have a hell of a lot more work to do if you want to say that Obamacare or even the THREAT of Obamacare is the cause.

[cwolff]

I'll ask again; where was it proven that election fraud is phony?

Also earlier you said:



Am I just totally reading this wrong or is it saying 141 non-citizens were on the voter roles? Isn't that voter fraud?





Thanks for the laugh.

I guess what I'm saying is that you are an idiot. I've been trying to avoid stating the obvious but you just keep pushing. Voter fraud is not a problem. The system works. The question you need to be asking is "Why in the hell are republican politicians making such a big deal out of a non-issue?" Follow the money Bernstein and you'll eventually figure it out.

[Tgo01]

Ah I see, we've gone from "there is no voter fraud!" to "voter fraud is not a problem."

Keep on back peddling, maybe you can go back in time far enough to stop John Wilkes Booth.

[Latrinsorm]

Not to bring us back on topic or anything, but I read a great news article the other day, was just an AP article so i'm sure it was published in many papers, and can probably be found online, but i'm fucking lazy...

Anyway, basically it was a write-up of the jobs added in the last year or so. I don't like to gloat, or say "I told you so"...oh, wait, I do. The vast majority of the jobs added are low wage, part-time jobs....which is EXACTLY what I said would happen 2 months ago in this very thread!

Obamacare and a rising minimum wage will destroy full-time employment in the industries that employ MOST Americans. It's ALREADY happening, just from the THREAT of Obamacare. Imagine how bad it will be when it goes into full effect.I forget which PC poster I was talking to about this, but it proves my point very well. The nominal value of minimum wage goes up, Thondalar envisions wholesale destruction of full-time employment. Did Thondalar adjust for inflation? Did Thondalar consider a certain basket of goods? No. The number is bigger than the number used to number. Thanks a lot, Obama!

Let's also consider the (what I will assume is correct) assertion about the distribution of jobs. Is the "vast majority" of low wage, part-time jobs more, less, or the same as the proportion of jobs that were added in 2003, 1993, 1963, etc.?

[Latrinsorm]

Ah I see, we've gone from "there is no voter fraud!" to "voter fraud is not a problem."

Keep on back peddling, maybe you can go back in time far enough to stop John Wilkes Booth.It is very interesting to me that you would use quotation marks here (generally used to indicate a quote), especially given your recent criticism of my quotes of President (so-called) Obama.

Let me ask you this: is there any possibility that your first interpretation of cwolff's remarks did not reflect what he meant or what they actually meant? Put another way, is there any possibility that the issue isn't cwolff changing position but you changing understanding?

[Parkbandit]

Ah I see, we've gone from "there is no voter fraud!" to "voter fraud is not a problem."

Keep on back peddling, maybe you can go back in time far enough to stop John Wilkes Booth.

LOL

[cwolff]

Ah I see, we've gone from "there is no voter fraud!" to "voter fraud is not a problem."

Keep on back peddling, maybe you can go back in time far enough to stop John Wilkes Booth.

You are arguing for perfection. It's not attainable little buddy. I hate to break it to you. Your parents probably should have had this talk with you when you were just a little idealist but I guess they failed.

You think you are winning a debate through some self-sealing circular logic. It's sad Tg. Like I said before I hope you're just acting out in here. Maybe PC is the place where you let your inner child out of the cage so that she can get some attention. You are attempting to draw some conclusion about democrats (BTW: I'm not a democrat) by positing an impossible position. It's weak and beneath you. I'm confident you can do better and again I encourage you to keep trying. I've not given up on you yet! With a little bit of work I'm confident you can say something that actually means something.

[Tgo01]

It is very interesting to me that you would use quotation marks here (generally used to indicate a quote), especially given your recent criticism of my quotes of President (so-called) Obama.

Let me ask you this: is there any possibility that your first interpretation of cwolff's remarks did not reflect what he meant or what they actually meant? Put another way, is there any possibility that the issue isn't cwolff changing position but you changing understanding?

Again this is what he said:


What dead voters? Election fraud like this is just not happening. Post some examples of where it does happen with links that substantiate these claims.

Then after Methais posted a link as he requested he suddenly changed his tune to (paraphrasing) (happy now?) "well yeah but that's such a small number..." and now he's saying (again paraphrasing) "voter fraud just isn't that big of a deal" and now you're saying that all along he meant voter fraud isn't a big deal and not that there was no voter fraud.

That's like the exact definition of back peddling.

[Thondalar]

It's a good start but you have a hell of a lot more work to do if you want to say that Obamacare or even the THREAT of Obamacare is the cause.

I've mentioned this several times before, I run a business that mostly employs people in this category. Obamacare IS the cause. As soon as it was passed we had corporate freaking the fuck out and cutting jobs and hours. After the Supreme Court said it was ok we had even more.

Come out of your shell into the real world. It's really hard for any of us to admit that something is actually bad when we've wanted to believe it's good. I get it. But we're never going to find a real solution until we can look at something logically, with a clear head, and call an apple an apple.

[Tgo01]

You are arguing for perfection. It's not attainable little buddy.

So we just give up and don't try to make improvements hmm? That's the American way!

Hey guys our justice system isn't perfect, so we should just keep plugging along like we do now and don't make any improvements, right?


I hate to break it to you. Your parents probably should have had this talk with you when you were just a little idealist but I guess they failed.

You think you are winning a debate through some self-sealing circular logic. It's sad Tg. Like I said before I hope you're just acting out in here. Maybe PC is the place where you let your inner child out of the cage so that she can get some attention. You are attempting to draw some conclusion about democrats (BTW: I'm not a democrat) by positing an impossible position. It's weak and beneath you. I'm confident you can do better and again I encourage you to keep trying. I've not given up on you yet! With a little bit of work I'm confident you can say something that actually means something.


It's sad that you sink to such a juvenile level.

[Latrinsorm]

That's like the exact definition of back peddling.Like I said, it's interesting that you would jump to any conclusion (perhaps on a board or mat of some kind) to find ways Obama wasn't really taking responsibility, but you absolutely refuse to consider any interpretation of cwolff's comment other than the one where cwolff is a wimpy pedlar of backs and you are a hero of integrity and rhetoric.
So we just give up and don't try to make improvements hmm? That's the American way!

Hey guys our justice system isn't perfect, so we should just keep plugging along like we do now and don't make any improvements, right?Boy, it's a lucky thing I responded to this before Thondalar did, you would be in for a stinging lecture about the real world and how you were being stupid, omphaloskepsic, illogical, and emotional.

I will merely point out that we have finite resources, and those resources are much better devoted to an area where we kill people with a 50% chance of them being guilty than an area where we let .004% of people illegally vote.

edited to add: of course, we may be able to do both if we raise taxes on those people most able to pay them, so I can only assume that when you inevitably respond "what, we can't do both?" you are endorsing that strategy, you socialist.

[Tgo01]

but you absolutely refuse to consider any interpretation of cwolff's comment other than the one where cwolff is a wimpy pedlar of backs and you are a hero of integrity and rhetoric.

To be fair no one has proven that I'm not the hero of integrity and rhetoric.

[Latrinsorm]

Wouldn't it be fair to say no one hasn't proven that you aren't, neither?

[Tgo01]

Wouldn't it be fair to say no one hasn't proven that you aren't, neither?

Exactly.

[Latrinsorm]

That's why I said wouldn't it.

[Tgo01]

More examples of Obama taking responsibility for the economy. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/07/obama-economic-speech_n_3718297.html?ref=topbar)


The economic policy speeches President Barack Obama has been delivering in recent weeks are turning out to be blunt attacks on Republicans, with an eye toward coming fiscal battles and the 2014 congressional elections.

Obama's basic message across the country, most recently sounded on Tuesday in Arizona, is that while he has made great strides in improving the economy, further progress is being thwarted by Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives.

By obstructing his proposals, Republicans are hurting the nation's "most vulnerable children," Obama said, along with farmers, the military, home-buyers, middle-class job seekers, immigrants and businesses seeking to hire immigrants.

From Galesburg, Illinois, to Chattanooga, Tennessee, to Phoenix, Arizona, Obama has been unrelenting in tone, attacking "slash-and-burn partisanship," "phony scandals," and the "gutted" farm bill - all the work of Republicans now spoiling for a fight that "could plunge us back in financial crisis."

Offering what he considers a moderate position on overhauling policies governing the housing industry, Obama said in Phoenix on Tuesday: "First, private capital should take a bigger role in the mortgage market. I know that's confusing to folks who call me a socialist."

Republicans, equally combative, began their counterattack even before Obama hit the road on July 24. "He ought to stop threatening to shut down the government unless we raise taxes," House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner said. "Americans aren't asking the question 'where are the speeches?' They're asking 'where are the jobs?'"

The barbs are likely to continue for some time.

The president and Republicans in Congress confront two major spending showdowns this fall: the first over a bill in September to continue funding the government and the second, probably in October, to raise the government's borrowing power so it can keep paying its bills.


CAMPAIGN FUNDRAISING WELL UNDER WAY

The midterm elections, held in years when a president is not being selected, are in November 2014 and fundraising by Democrats and Republicans is well under way. Both parties need issues to inspire contributions.

It is normal for a president to join the fray on behalf of his party in a midterm election, though White House officials insist that beyond fundraising for Democrats, Obama is not focused at all on the 2014 races.

"The president is focused on using every day in office to try to advance his agenda and when it comes to affecting the outcome of the midterms, the Republicans appear to be taking the lead on that," said a senior White House official.

But bit by bit, Obama is building an argument for why he feels many Republicans are willing to do damage to the U.S. economy for political gain.

Brad Woodhouse, head of the liberal group Americans United For Change, said Obama's speeches are helping to crystallize where the parties stand on the issues in a way that will prove helpful to Democrats in 2014.

"I think all of us would just prefer get the two parties together and get something done but I think it really does lay the groundwork for a foundation about priorities in midterms," said Woodhouse.

The potential for a government shutdown over the budget is tricky politics for Obama. On the one hand, Americans have generally sided with the president against attempts to shut down the federal government over budget politics.

But on the other hand, Obama was widely viewed as the loser in the debate over $84 billion in "sequestration" budget cuts that began in March. In most cases, Americans have simply shrugged and gotten accustomed to the cuts.

This makes it essential for Obama to make sure the blame falls squarely on Republicans for a government shutdown should one occur this fall.

"It feels like a campaign and it feels like they are setting it up so he (Obama) can't be blamed if they go to a government shutdown," said one Democratic loyalist.

While the outcome of the budget showdown could potentially help Obama politically, he still faces difficulty in turning this into votes for more Democratic lawmakers in November 2014.

Democrats need a net gain of 27 seats to win control of the House. They control the Senate with a 54-46 margin and may see their majority narrowed in 2014.

Dave Wasserman, an expert on House races at the non-partisan Cook Political Report, said he could not see how Democrats can pick up House seats in 2014, but that Obama has to make an effort to improve chances that he can get some action taken on his agenda before he turns into a lame duck president.

"Obama has very little choice," he said. "The parties in Congress are so polarized that he can't reasonably search for Republican votes in the House. They simply aren't there on big ticket issues." (Editing by Fred Barbash and Mohammad Zargham)

[Back]

To be fair no one has proven that I'm not the hero of integrity and rhetoric.

lol. No one has to. You prove it every time you open your mouth.

[ClydeR]

The Kaiser Family Foundation has an online calculator you can use to estimate your premium cost and subsidy eligibility based on national averages. It's a crude tool because it is based on national averages and because it fails to take into account that people will be able to pick expensive health plans that cover a lot or cheap health plans that cover only a little.


ABOUT THIS TOOL

This tool illustrates health insurance premiums and subsidies for people purchasing insurance on their own in new health insurance exchanges (or “Marketplaces”) created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Beginning in October 2013, middle-income people under age 65, who are not eligible for coverage through their employer, Medicaid, or Medicare, can apply for tax credit subsidies available through state-based exchanges.

Additionally, states have the option to expand their Medicaid programs to cover all people making up to 138% of the federal poverty level (which is about $33,000 for a family of four). In states that opt out of expanding Medicaid, some people making below this amount will still be eligible for Medicaid, some will be eligible for subsidized coverage through Marketplaces, and others will not be eligible for subsidies.

With this calculator, you can enter different income levels, ages, and family sizes to get an estimate of your eligibility for subsidies and how much you could spend on health insurance. As premiums and eligibility requirements may vary, contact your state’s Medicaid office or exchange with enrollment questions.

More... (http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/)

[ClydeR]

WebMD has a to-the-minute countdown on their ACA resource page (http://www.webmd.com/health-insurance/default.htm). It's just 50 more days until the exchanges open.

Educate yourself today so you won't be caught flat-footed at the end of this year.

[Parkbandit]

First, there was the delay of Obamacare’s Medicare cuts (http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/04/24/the-obama-campaigns-8-billion-taxpayer-funded-medicare-slush-fund/) until after the election. Then there was the delay of the law’s employer mandate (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/07/02/white-house-to-delay-obamacares-employer-mandate-until-2015-far-reaching-implications-for-the-private-health-insurance-market/). Then there was the announcement, buried in theFederal Register, that the administration would delay enforcement of a number of key eligibility requirements for the law’s health insurance subsidies, relying on the “honor system (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/07/06/not-qualified-for-obamacares-subsidies-just-lie-govt-to-use-honor-system-without-verifying-your-eligibility/)” instead. Now comes word that another costly provision of the health law—its caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs—will be delayed for one more year.
According to the Congressional Research Service (http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/rightnow?ContentRecord_id=3e699ea5-55d1-445c-a07f-5ae693e893cf&ContentType_id=b4672ca4-3752-49c3-bffc-fd099b51c966&Group_id=00380921-999d-40f6-a8e3-470468762340), as of November 2011, the Obama administration had missed as many as one-third of the deadlines, specified by law, under the Affordable Care Act. Here are the details on the latest one.
Obamacare contains a blizzard of mandates and regulations that will make health insurance more costly. One of the most significant is its caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs, such as co-pays and deductibles. Section 2707(b) of the Public Health (http://www.forbes.com/health/) Service Act, as added by Obamacare, requires that “a group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish lifetime limits on the dollar value of benefits for the any participant or beneficiary.” Annual limits on cost-sharing are specified by Section 1302(c) of the Affordable Care Act; in addition, starting in 2014, deductibles are limited to $2,000 per year for individual plans, and $4,000 per year for family plans.


Out-of-pocket caps drive premiums upward
There’s no such thing as a free lunch. If you ban lifetime limits, and mandate lower deductibles, and cap out-of-pocket costs, premiums have to go up to reflect these changes. And unlike a lot of the “rate shock” problems we’ve been discussing, these limits apply not only to individually-purchased health insurance, but also to employer-sponsored coverage. (Self-insured employers are exempted.)
These mandates have already had drastic effects (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/06/05/obamacare-increases-costs-of-college-health-plans-by-as-much-as-1112/) on a number of colleges and universities, which offer inexpensive, defined-cap plans to their healthy, youthful students. Premiums at Lenoir-Rhyne University in Hickory, N.C., for example, rose from $245 per student in 2011-2012 to between $2,507 in 2012-2013. The University of Puget Sound (http://www.forbes.com/colleges/university-of-puget-sound/) paid $165 per student in 2011-2012; their rates rose to between $1,500 and $2,000 for 2012-2013. Other schools have been forced to drop coverage because they could no longer afford it.
According to the law, the limits on out-of-pocket costs for 2014 were $6,350 for individual policies and $12,700 for family ones. But in February, the Department of Labor published a little-noticed rule delaying the cap until 2015. The delay was described yesterday (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/us/a-limit-on-consumer-costs-is-delayed-in-health-care-law.html?smid=tw-nytimeshealth&seid=auto&_r=0&pagewanted=all) by Robert Pear in the New York Times.


Delay needed to align ‘separate computer systems’
Notes Pear, “Under the [one-year delay], many group health plans will be able to maintain separate out-of-pocket limits for benefits in 2014. As a result, a consumer may be required to pay $6,350 for doctors’ services and hospital care, and an additional $6,350 for prescription drugs under a plan administered by a pharmacy benefit manager.”
The reason for the delay? “Federal officials said that many insurers and employers needed more time to comply because they used separate companies to help administer major medical coverage and drug benefits, with separate limits on out-of-pocket costs. In many cases, the companies have separate computer systems that cannot communicate with one another.”
The best part in Pear’s story is when a “senior administration official” said that “we had to balance the interests of consumers with the concerns of health plan sponsors and carriers…They asked for more time to comply.” Exactly how is it in consumers’ interests to pay far more for health insurance than they do already?
It’s not. Unless you have a serious, chronic condition, in which case you may benefit from the fact that law forces healthy people to subsidize your care. To progressives, this is the holy grail. But for economically rational individuals, it’s yet another reason to drop out of the insurance market altogether. For economically rational businesses, it’s a reason to self-insure, in order to get out from under these costly mandates.


Patient groups upset
While insurers and premium-payers will be happy with the delay—whose legal justification is dubious once again—there are groups that grumbled. Specifically, groups representing those with chronic diseases, and the pharmaceutical companies whose costly drugs they will use. “The American Cancer Society (http://www.forbes.com/companies/american-cancer-society/) shares the concern” about the delay, says Pear, “and noted that some new cancer drugs cost $100,000 a year or more.” But a big part of the reason those drugs cost so much is because manufacturers know that government-run insurers will pay up.

“The promise of out-of-pocket limits was one of the main reasons we supported health reform,” says Theodore M. Thompson of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society (http://www.forbes.com/companies/national-multiple-sclerosis-society/) . “We have wonderful new drugs, the biologics, to treat rheumatoid arthritis,” said Patience H. White of the Arthritis Foundation. “But they are extremely expensive.”
The progressive solution to expensive problems? More subsidies. But subsidies don’t reduce the underlying cost of care. They only excuse the high prices that manufacturers and service providers already charge.
It’s one of the many aspects of Obamacare that should be repealed, if we are to combat the rate shock that the health law imposes on tens of millions of Americans. But that will require Republicans to come up with a smarter strategy than shutting down the government.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/13/yet-another-white-house-obamacare-delay-out-of-pocket-caps-waived-until-2015/

[Tgo01]

What a train wreck.

[Parkbandit]

What a train wreck.

It was always meant to be... They knew they weren't even close to passing a single payer system.. so make a "compromise" system they knew would eventually fail and who will have to pick up the pieces? The government will save us!

"This system doesn't work.. we have no choice but to push through a single payer system.. it's the only solution!"

[Atlanteax]

It was always meant to be... They knew they weren't even close to passing a single payer system.. so make a "compromise" system they knew would eventually fail and who will have to pick up the pieces? The government will save us!

"This system doesn't work.. we have no choice but to push through a single payer system.. it's the only solution!"

It is as if you are cynical and lack faith in the ability of the U.S. government to act in your best interests.

[ClydeR]

Now comes word that another costly provision of the health law—its caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs—will be delayed for one more year.

This is what they're referring to from the February 20, 2013, FAQ on the government website..


Q2: Who must comply with the annual limitation on out-of-pocket maximums under PHS Act section 2707(b)?

As stated in the preamble to the HHS final regulation on standards related to essential health benefits, the Departments read PHS Act section 2707(b) as requiring all non-grandfathered group health plans to comply with the annual limitation on out-of-pocket maximums described in section 1302(c)(1) of the Affordable Care Act.[3]

The Departments recognize that plans may utilize multiple service providers to help administer benefits (such as one third-party administrator for major medical coverage, a separate pharmacy benefit manager, and a separate managed behavioral health organization). Separate plan service providers may impose different levels of out-of-pocket limitations and may utilize different methods for crediting participants' expenses against any out-of-pocket maximums. These processes will need to be coordinated under section 1302(c)(1), which may require new regular communications between service providers.

The Departments have determined that, only for the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2014, where a group health plan or group health insurance issuer utilizes more than one service provider to administer benefits that are subject to the annual limitation on out-of-pocket maximums under section 2707(a) or 2707(b), the Departments will consider the annual limitation on out-of-pocket maximums to be satisfied if both of the following conditions are satisfied:

The plan complies with the requirements with respect to its major medical coverage (excluding, for example, prescription drug coverage and pediatric dental coverage); and
To the extent the plan or any health insurance coverage includes an out-of-pocket maximum on coverage that does not consist solely of major medical coverage (for example, if a separate out-of-pocket maximum applies with respect to prescription drug coverage), such out-of-pocket maximum does not exceed the dollar amounts set forth in section 1302(c)(1).
The Departments note, however, that existing regulations implementing Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA)[4] prohibit a group health plan (or health insurance coverage offered in connection with a group health plan) from applying a cumulative financial requirement or treatment limitation, such as an out-of-pocket maximum, to mental health or substance use disorder benefits that accumulates separately from any such cumulative financial requirement or treatment limitation established for medical/surgical benefits. Accordingly, under MHPAEA, plans and issuers are prohibited from imposing an annual out-of-pocket maximum on all medical/surgical benefits and a separate annual out-of-pocket maximum on all mental health and substance use disorder benefits.

More... (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-aca12.html)

Plans must still comply with the out-of-pocket maximum for major medical, regardless of whether not the employer uses multiple service providers.

[Parkbandit]

As the debate rages over who benefits from the Affordable Care Act, one thing is becoming clear: The controversial program is a dream come true for rip-off artists.
Consumer experts warn that the program has created a huge opportunity for swindling people by stealing their money and their sensitive personal information.
"Any time you roll out a big government program like this, confusion is inevitable," said Lois Greisman, an associate director in the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission. "This confusion creates a tremendous opportunity for the fraudster."
Scammers have been at it for more than a year now, but consumer advocates and security experts warn that the problem will worsen as we get closer to Oct. 1. That's when the millions of uninsured Americans can use a health insurance exchange, set-up by their state or by the federal government, to shop for coverage.
"I believe the incidents are going to skyrocket as that date approaches," said Eva Velasquez, president and CEO of the nonprofit Identity Theft Resource Center (http://www.idtheftcenter.org/). "And even people who are smart and savvy could get taken, so we are very concerned about the potential for some serious financial harm."
The Affordable Care Act (http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/facts/timeline/index.html) created a Health Insurance Marketplace (https://www.healthcare.gov/what-is-the-health-insurance-marketplace/), also referred to as the Health Insurance Exchange. Policies in the exchange have been preapproved by each state's insurance commissioner.
"There are fake exchanges already up and running on the Internet," said Monica Lindeen, Montana's Commissioner of Securities and Insurance. "If you do a search and type in 'exchange,' you'll find all sorts of websites that claim to be in the exchange when they are not."
(Read more: Why latest Obamacare delay angers critics and fans (http://www.cnbc.com/id/100959960))
These health insurance exchanges don't open for business until Oct. 1, so no one can sell you insurance through an exchange until then.
Scam artists got an early jump on national health care reform. Since last year, they've been calling, faxing and emailing people across the country claiming to be with Medicare, Obamacare or some agency of the federal government.
They often say they need to "verify" some personal information (typically a bank account or Social Security number) to ensure you get the proper benefits. In some cases, fraudsters tell victims they need to buy an insurance card to be eligible for coverage under the new program.
Such calls can be especially intimidating to seniors, said John Breyault, who runsFraud.org (http://www.fraud.org/), a project of National Consumers League.
"We've heard about cases where the scam artists have threatened people with jail if they don't purchase the fake insurance cards," Breyault said.
(Read more: Watch out for the 'change my address' scam (http://www.cnbc.com/id/100908339))
Americans don't need a new Medicare card, and no one from the government is calling and asking for personal information or money. Under the individual mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act, people who don't buy insurance could have to pay a penalty, but that provision does not take effect until next year. There is no jail penalty in the law.


A con artist can claim to be anyone, for instance a "navigator" who can help you apply for coverage through an exchange. They gain your trust and then ask for personal information to buy nonexistent policies. Fraud.org reports that some victims have been persuaded to wire money or send funds via prepaid debit card to get their full benefits.
(Read more: Hate robocalls? Here's how you can block them (http://www.cnbc.com/id/100887510))
Thousands of legitimate navigators are being trained and certified to guide people through the process of applying for coverage through an exchange. These navigators are prohibited from recommending a particular plan. They will never ask for personal information or for money in any form. The navigator program hasn't started yet, so no one is making calls.
Don't get taken
There is only one place to shop for a qualified health plan: HealthCare.gov (https://www.healthcare.gov/), the site run by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. You also want to start your search (https://www.healthcare.gov/what-is-the-marketplace-in-my-state/) here if you live in one of the places (17 states, District of Columbia, Guam or American Samoa), that set up its own exchange. Customer service representatives are available at 1 (800) 318-2596.
These tips, provided by consumer groups and government, will help you spot a fraud:
—There is no card associated with health care reform.
—There is no new Medicare card, and you do not have to update any personal information.
—The Health Insurance Marketplace (those exchanges) doesn't open until Oct. 1, so you can't buy coverage under the Affordable Care Act until then.
—Don't respond to a cold call of any kind, especially one that asks for personal information or money. And don't trust caller ID, which can be rigged to make it look as if the call is coming from a government office.
—Don't let anyone rush you. The rates in the exchange have been preapproved and won't change during the initial enrollment period, Oct. 1 to March 31. Anyone promising a "special price" or "limited time offer" or who tells you "spots are limited" is lying.
The FTC's Lois Greisman urges you to file a complaint (https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/) if you spot a problem, get a suspicious call or fall victim to a health care insurance con artist.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100963714

[ClydeR]

The IRS has a new website about Obamacare. It has a lot more details on the tax issues than the other websites.

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Affordable-Care-Act-Tax-Provisions-Home

[Tgo01]

Unions To White House On Obamacare, Taft-Hartley Plans: 'You Made The Problem, You Fix It' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/unions-obamacare-taft-hartley_n_3790548.html?ref=topbar)


WASHINGTON -- Signaling a growing rift between some unions and the White House over the Affordable Care Act, the Nevada State AFL-CIO passed a stinging resolution Wednesday that criticized the administration for its handling of their concerns with the health care reform law. The resolution claims the law could end up "destroying" the unions' multi-employer health plans if the administration doesn't come up with a regulatory fix.

"[O]ur union members and their families originally offered strong political and moral support for the promise of the Affordable Care Act because it would expand health care coverage for more Americans," the resolution read. But when it came to dealing with the unions' concerns, "the Administration has postured on proposals to address the problem, but no proposal to date will actually solve the problem. Our health plans only get worse."

Several unions -- UNITE HERE, the United Food and Commercial Workers and the Teamsters -- have already voiced their worries that the law will undermine their multi-employer health care plans, known as Taft-Hartley plans. But Wednesday's resolution formalizes a major state labor federation's grievances just ahead of the AFL-CIO's national convention next month -- and just as the White House prepares for the law's rollout amid attacks from the right.

The critique also creates some political awkwardness not only for the Obama administration but for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). One of the unions taking the lead on the issue, the 60,000-member Culinary Workers Union Local 226, a UNITE HERE affiliate, is the largest union in Nevada and a major political force in the state.

Long used by unionized workers in the building trades and service industries, Taft-Hartley plans are nonprofit health care plans jointly administered by participating companies and unions. The plans have traditionally allowed workers in transient industries to move between employers while still maintaining the same health care. Due to unions' seat at the table, the plans tend to offer strong coverage at a low out-of-pocket cost to workers.

In an interview, UNITE HERE President D. Taylor said the union has been in talks with the White House and the Treasury Department over how Taft-Hartley plans should be interpreted under the law. According to Taylor, if workers under Taft-Hartley plans aren't eligible for subsidies, employers will see little reason to remain a part of such plans down the road, potentially forcing workers to purchase their own health care on the state-run exchanges, which are unlikely to offer so much coverage at such low rates.

The Treasury Department has signaled that it views the Taft-Hartley plans as equivalent to other employer-based plans, which aren't eligible for subsidies. Taylor said Taft-Hartley plans should be seen differently because they're nonprofit.

"We've been working for over two years with essentially all aspects of the government, including Treasury, which wants to interpret [Taft-Hartley] as an employer plan, and it's not," Taylor said. "The Affordable Care Act has clearly been devised so that it would make our nonprofit Taft-Hartley plans completely uncompetitive."

"We want to hold the president to his word that you can keep the plan you like," Taylor added.

Obamacare has been assailed by the right since the day it was signed. The House GOP has made 40 doomed efforts to repeal the law, and nearly half of states -- all with Republican governors or GOP-majority legislatures -- have refused to participate in the Medicaid expansion, a crucial component in getting health care coverage to the poor.

Unions' concern over the law's effects on their Taft-Hartley plans has added a rare bit of criticism from the left, giving fodder to the law's Republican critics. Like other progressives, organized labor widely supported the health care law when it was crafted and signed, and many of the unions that don't participate in Taft-Hartley plans have remained quiet on the issue.

Tim Schlittner, a UFCW spokesman, said it wasn't unions' duty to worry about whether or not they're giving someone political fodder by raising concerns with the law.

"Our responsibility is not to the political left or right, it's to our members," Schlittner said. "As far as this law is concerned, we think if it's not fixed, it could cause harm to our members who've bargained for health care. These are not rich people, they're workers in grocery stores."

But because of how the law was crafted, it may not leave much room for the White House to interpret Taft-Hartley plans as unions would like, according to Paul Secunda, a professor at the Marquette University School of Law who specializes in employee benefits and labor. The problem, Secunda said, is that the law states that only people who go on the open exchanges will be eligible for subsidies. Taft-Hartley plans "aren't open to all comers," he said.

"I understand where the UFCW and UNITE HERE and the Teamsters are coming from ... They're making a good point that the operation of the law will have a detrimental impact on union health plans," Secunda said, adding that about 20 million workers are on such plans. "But there's nothing in the law as it was enacted that gives the administration the ability to interpret the law how unions want it to be interpreted."

Timothy Jost, an expert on health law at Washington and Lee University School of Law, agreed that the administration may have little wiggle room.

"I think it's a problem with the legislation; it's not a regulatory problem," Jost said. "But that doesn't mean I don't sympathize with them."

The Congressional Research Service, a nonprofit legislative analysis group, published a paper saying Taft-Hartley plans likely wouldn't be eligible for subsidies based on the way the law is written.

But Taylor and Schlittner said they believe it is within the administration's power to interpret the Taft-Hartley plans as eligible for subsidies.

In a piece last month, Talking Points Memo wrote that unions were essentially asking for a "double subsidy" through their interpretation of the law: Employer contributions to Taft-Hartley plans are already tax-deductible and employee contributions are paid pre-tax, while unions also want the tax credits that go with qualified buyers on the exchanges.

Taylor argued that it wasn't appropriate for the subsidies to help only buyers in a for-profit marketplace.

"Why is it that the only people getting subsidies are for-profit?" he asked.

Citing the administration's decision to delay employer penalties under the law for a year -- as well as a regulatory tweak that will keep health care costs down for Hill staffers -- Taylor said the "only people who've gotten special treatment are the business community and Capitol Hill."

"Here's what we're saying: 'You made the problem, you fix it,'" Taylor said. "Here we have situation where you can't blame the Republicans."

[Tgo01]

Aetna Pulls Out Of Another Obamacare Health Exchange (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/aetna-obamacare_n_3839360.html)


Aug 29 (Reuters) - Aetna Inc has decided not to sell insurance on New York's individual health insurance exchange, which is being created under President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law, the fifth state where it has reversed course in recent weeks.

The third-largest U.S. health insurer has said it is seeking to limit its exposure to the risks of providing health plans to America's uninsured, but did not give details about its decision to pull out of specific markets.

"We believe it is critical that our plans not only be competitive, but also financially viable, in order to meet the long-term needs of the exchanges in which we choose to participate. On New York, as a result of our analysis, we reluctantly came to the conclusion to withdraw," Aetna spokeswoman Cynthia Michener said.

The New York decision comes as states finalize the roster of health plans that will be offered to millions of uninsured Americans beginning on Oct. 1.

Aetna and its newly acquired Coventry Health unit, a low-cost provider that caters to individuals and Medicaid beneficiaries and provides private Medicare policies, still have applications to sell coverage in 10 states, based on publicly available information.

Michener said the full list of state exchanges where Aetna will participate is still being finalized.

The new online insurance exchanges are the lynchpin of Obama's healthcare reform, representing a massive technology build-out that has run up against multiple delays and political opposition in many states. In their first year, the exchanges aim to provide coverage to 7 million uninsured Americans, many of whom will be eligible for government subsidies.

Aetna's large competitors, such as UnitedHealth Group Inc and WellPoint Inc, have also planned limited entries into the new exchanges while they wait and see whether they operate smoothly and whether enough healthy people sign on to offset the costs of sicker new members.

"We've got this period where the exchange experience, the exchange sentiment, and news headlines are probably not going to be very flattering and that's not going to have a positive impact on turnout," said Jefferies & Co analyst David Windley.

"Longer-term, those kinks will get ironed out, more people will get comfortable and in (the next few years) more people will be accessing their health insurance through an exchange of some sort," he said.

'RISK-BASED APPROACH'

Aetna signaled last month that it was considering withdrawing some applications because of its purchase of Coventry, which also had filed documents to sell insurance plans on exchanges around the country.

"We have taken a prudent risk-based approach to both our overall exposure and exposure within a given marketplace," Chief Executive Officer Mark Bertolini said on a conference call with analysts at the time.

Since then, it has withdrawn applications in Maryland, Ohio, Georgia, and Connecticut, where it is based. In Maryland, Aetna's decision came after state regulators ordered the company to lower rates dramatically from what it had proposed.

Aetna also has filed applications in Florida, Arizona and Virginia, where the federal government will operate the exchanges, and in Washington, D.C., which is running its own exchange.

Coventry filed applications to sell insurance in Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia, according to those states' insurance departments. Iowa is working with the government on its exchanges while the rest are being run entirely by the federal government.

Coventry withdrew its applications in Georgia and Maryland when Aetna bowed out but it remains in Ohio. It also withdrew earlier this month from Tennessee.

Aetna and Coventry may also have filed plans in other states that have not released any information about participants.

Insurance plans in the 33 states that have defaulted to the federal government exchanges must be approved by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and then insurers sign off on them. Earlier this week, HHS delayed the sign-off deadline to mid-September after originally aiming for early next month.

Michener said the company will continue to serve small business and large business customers in New York and will offer products to individual consumers outside of the exchanges.

Only 17,000 or so people in New York currently buy individual insurance, but the exchange is expected to bring in 1 million people during the first three years. The exchange announced insurance participants on Aug. 20. Aetna was not on the list.

Obamacare is so awesome that EVERYONE wants to be a part of it.

Obamacare basically asks insurance companies to take the risks and shoulder part of the financial burden for our massive healthcare spending, why is anyone surprised that they aren't jumping at the chance to do so?

[Methais]

Aetna is racist and wants grandma to die.

[Atlanteax]

Aetna Pulls Out Of Another Obamacare Health Exchange (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/aetna-obamacare_n_3839360.html)

Obamacare is so awesome that EVERYONE wants to be a part of it.

Obamacare basically asks insurance companies to take the risks and shoulder part of the financial burden for our massive healthcare spending, why is anyone surprised that they aren't jumping at the chance to do so?

Because Insurance companies know first-hand the lengths people will go thru to abuse the system.

[Latrinsorm]

Aetna Pulls Out Of Another Obamacare Health Exchange (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/aetna-obamacare_n_3839360.html)



Obamacare is so awesome that EVERYONE wants to be a part of it.

Obamacare basically asks insurance companies to take the risks and shoulder part of the financial burden for our massive healthcare spending, why is anyone surprised that they aren't jumping at the chance to do so?Businesses have to be forced to do the right thing, this is news how?
"Longer-term, those kinks will get ironed out, more people will get comfortable and in (the next few years) more people will be accessing their health insurance through an exchange of some sort," he said.WRONG it either works immediately or it is an unmitigated disaster, no middle ground, David Windley-Whatley.

[Tgo01]

Businesses have to be forced to do the right thing, this is news how?

You're the only one saying it's news.


WRONG it either works immediately or it is an unmitigated disaster, no middle ground, David Windley-Whatley.

Latrin is disagreeing with me, I think this is proof positive that I am right :)

[ClydeR]

Depending on your standards, this video is possibly NSFW. It is part of the campaign to convince college kids to go uninsured for the purpose of sabotaging Obamacare..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7cRsfW0Jv8

Read an article about it here (http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-battle-moves-to-college-campuses-200027191.html).

[Tgo01]

That's creepy, I'm never going to OBGYN ever again :(

[Parkbandit]

It was one of candidate Obama’s most vivid and concrete campaign promises. Forget about high minded (some might say high sounding) but gauzy promises of hope and change. This candidate solemnly pledged on June 5, 2008: “In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year….. We’ll do it by the end of my first term as President of the United States. (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/obamas-inflated-health-savings/)” Unfortunately, the experts working for Medicare’s actuary have (yet again[1]) reported that in its first 10 years, Obamacare will boost health spending by “roughly $621 billion (http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/Proj2012.pdf)” above the amounts Americans would have spent without this misguided law.
What this means for a typical family of four
$621 billion is a pretty eye-glazing number. Most readers will find it easier to think about how this number translates to a typical American family—the very family candidate Obama promised would see $2,500 in annual savings as far as the eye could see. So I have taken the latest year-by-year projections, divided by the projected population and multiplied the result by 4.
Interactive Guide: What Will Obamacare Cost You? (http://www.forbes.com/special-report/2013/what-will-obamacare-cost-you-map.html)
Simplistic? Maybe, but so too was the President’s campaign promise. And this approach allows us to see just how badly that promise fell short of the mark. Between 2014 and 2022, the increase in national health spending (which the Medicare actuaries specifically attribute to the law) amounts to $7,450 per family of 4.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/23/its-official-obamacare-will-increase-health-spending-by-7450-for-a-typical-family-of-four/

[Parkbandit]

Arguing federal workers should not get special treatment, Rand Paul says he does not want taxpayers subsidizing the personal health-care plans of any federal employee — including Chief Justice John Roberts — anymore.
With some in Congress arguing lawmakers and their staff should not get subsidies to cover their health insurance as President Obama’s health-care law goes into effect, the Republican senator from Kentucky told The Daily Caller on Sunday that he’s going to start pushing a constitutional amendment that goes even further.
Paul’s proposal — outlawing any special exemptions for government employees — would mean all federal workers would have to purchase health insurance on the new Obamacare exchanges instead of getting taxpayer-funded subsidies. Some critics say those subsidies amount to special treatment. The Obamacare health insurance exchange opens Oct 1.
“My amendment says basically that everybody including Justice Roberts — who seems to be such a fan of Obamacare — gets it too,” Paul told TheDC by phone on Sunday from Mackinac Island in Michigan, where he won a straw poll of potential Republican candidates for president in 2016.
“See, right now, Justice Roberts is still continuing to have federal employee health insurance subsidized by the taxpayer,” Paul said. “And if he likes Obamacare so much, I’m going to give him an amendment that gives Obamacare to Justice Roberts.”
Roberts famously voted to uphold the constitutionality of Obama’s unpopular health-care law when it went before the Supreme Court last year.
Paul’s constitutional amendment says no federal employees should get special exemptions from laws. The senator also plans to push a proposal requiring that Congress and all federal employees rely on Obamacare for their insurance.
His proposal comes after outrage from conservatives about a so-called “exemption” for members of Congress and their staff from Obamacare.
What’s being referred to as the “Obamacare fix” for lawmakers and staff was made because the Affordable Care Act includes an amendment from a Republican senator that changes how the government currently covers most of the cost of health-care premiums for members of Congress and their staffers. The new law mandates that members and staff must enter into exchanges or be covered by insurance “created” by law.
But after concerns about the cost of health care going up for congressional employees, the Office of Personnel Management announced in August that it would provide a subsidy of about 75 percent of the cost for the health care of members and staff.
Paul revealed his new amendment push on Sunday after TheDC inquired about a proposal from Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, who has proposed killing those federal Obamacare subsidies for lawmakers and their staff. “I support any effort to make all laws applicable to Congress that we pass,” Paul said.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/23/exclusive-rand-paul-wants-chief-justice-roberts-all-federal-workers-to-enroll-in-obamacare/#ixzz2fjOBUCLe

[Thondalar]

According to the Obamacare paperwork I got from my employer Friday, all I have to do to not get "fined" for not having health insurance is say it's for religious purposes.

I can't imagine they would have left that loophole.

[Methais]

According to the Obamacare paperwork I got from my employer Friday, all I have to do to not get "fined" for not having health insurance is say it's for religious purposes.

I can't imagine they would have left that loophole.

That probably will only apply to muslims, so you might have to invest in a towel before you tell them that.

[Atlanteax]

and only if you have the INF1DL license place.

[Parkbandit]

According to the Obamacare paperwork I got from my employer Friday, all I have to do to not get "fined" for not having health insurance is say it's for religious purposes.

I can't imagine they would have left that loophole.

You really can't imagine a politician putting in a loophole into a law?

[Thondalar]

You really can't imagine a politician putting in a loophole into a law?

Oh no, I fully expect that...I guess I'm meaning more like...I expected more religious persecution from federally mandated healthcare, not less...and certainly not a "get out of taxes free" card.

[Latrinsorm]

It was one of candidate Obama’s most vivid and concrete campaign promises. Forget about high minded (some might say high sounding) but gauzy promises of hope and change. This candidate solemnly pledged on June 5, 2008: “In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year….. We’ll do it by the end of my first term as President of the United States. (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/obamas-inflated-health-savings/)” Unfortunately, the experts working for Medicare’s actuary have (yet again[1]) reported that in its first 10 years, Obamacare will boost health spending by “roughly $621 billion (http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/Proj2012.pdf)” above the amounts Americans would have spent without this misguided law.
What this means for a typical family of four
$621 billion is a pretty eye-glazing number. Most readers will find it easier to think about how this number translates to a typical American family—the very family candidate Obama promised would see $2,500 in annual savings as far as the eye could see. So I have taken the latest year-by-year projections, divided by the projected population and multiplied the result by 4.
Interactive Guide: What Will Obamacare Cost You? (http://www.forbes.com/special-report/2013/what-will-obamacare-cost-you-map.html)
Simplistic? Maybe, but so too was the President’s campaign promise. And this approach allows us to see just how badly that promise fell short of the mark. Between 2014 and 2022, the increase in national health spending (which the Medicare actuaries specifically attribute to the law) amounts to $7,450 per family of 4.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/09/23/its-official-obamacare-will-increase-health-spending-by-7450-for-a-typical-family-of-four/You must get really outraged by advertisements if this is what you honestly believe "up to" means.
With some in Congress arguing lawmakers and their staff should not get subsidies to cover their health insurance as President Obama’s health-care law goes into effect, the Republican senator from Kentucky told The Daily Caller on Sunday that he’s going to start pushing a constitutional amendment that goes even further.lol

[ClydeR]

This article says Obamacare will mean a longer wait for a doctor appointment.


About 25 million Americans are expected to gain coverage under the health law, commonly known as Obamacare. Starting Oct. 1, as many as 7 million uninsured Americans will begin shopping for private plans through government-run exchanges, with many people eligible to have their premiums subsidized by taxpayers. On Jan. 1, Medicaid programs for low-income people will be expanded in about half the U.S. states.

Strained System

The increase in newly insured patients arrives at a time when the nation has 15,230 fewer primary-care doctors than it needs, according to an Aug. 28 assessment by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. And emergency rooms report being strained with visits that have risen at twice the rate of population growth.

“It’s like we’re handing out bus tickets and the bus is already full,” said Perry Pugno, vice president for medical education at the American Academy of Family Physicians, by telephone. “The shortfall of primary-care access is not an insignificant problem, and it’s going to get worse.”

More... (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-23/doctors-brace-for-health-law-s-surge-of-ailing-patients.html)

[Jarvan]

You know.. I had 3 more friends ask me today why the republicans are using funding the government to try to get rid or delay Obamacare. They wanted to know what one had to do with the other.

Took me a jaw dropping moment to reply.. What, you think Obamacare was free?

Frankly, CBO has already stated that Obamacare will cost at least 2x what originally was promised. Which means that not only does it have to do with the budget, it really has to do with the budget. The Repubs went about this the wrong way though. They should have just fought for a delay right now.. Senators voting to NOT delay the individual mandate a year when the Pres gave that away without a vote to the Businesses, would be better, and much more likely to get traction. Then, run on it again next year, see if you can take back then senate, THEN defund it.

[Atlanteax]

Frankly, CBO has already stated that Obamacare will cost at least 2x what originally was promised.

But Back said it will reduce costs!!

[Methais]

But Back said it will reduce costs!!

http://hugelolcdn.com/i/152695.gif

[crb]

Businesses have to be forced to do the right thing, this is news how?

No they don't, it is in a business' self interest to do what their customers want, which is generally the "right" thing.

When a pig named Snowball dictates what is right or wrong... well yes, then you might have to use force. Remember, when your solution to a problem starts with "The government should force..." you've proven yourself an enlightened individual.


Obamacare is a big fuckup, trying to stop it is a waste of time, let it happen and prove to be a big fuckup, it'll be a hard lesson but apparently the electorate has to learn it.

Most liberals cheerleader for Obamacare without understanding it, especially without understanding how it doesn't cover all the uninsured (the most recent estimates say it'll cover an additional 11m people, out of 50m supposedly uninsured), will not prevent people from going bankrupt from medical bills, will not lower healthcare costs, and generally is the worst possible way to get universal coverage, it fixes nothing. They're annoying in the same way liberals who carry Obama's foreign policy water would have been foaming at the mouth if it was McCain in office doing the exact same things.

Likewise, most conservatives hate Obamacare because socialism, and taxes, and spending, and while they are technically accurate in trying Obamacare to taxes and spending, those are pretty broad targets and hard to miss. Most can't articulate the true problems with it, why they're problems, and what an alternative would be. Even John McCain, who ran for president, on a platform that included a healthcare plan, that was at the time time more socialist than Obamacare, and better than Obamacare, and would have covered more people than Obamacare, probably couldn't articulate any details about it.

Why? With few exceptions, the people in Washington are power hungry idiots who care only for partisan battles and not for policy, and the electorate is largely incapable for thinking for themselves and instead takes their cues from celebrities and talking heads.

But anyways, if anyone here would like some actual information, on yet another Obamacare fuckup.

http://healthblog.ncpa.org/out-of-pocket-costs-in-the-california-exchange/ its a great example of how insurance works and how humans behave and how our system is incentivizing the wrong behavior.

The individual mandate lacks teeth, the insurance plans offered in the exchanges favor healthy individuals, this is going to result in people self selecting into different risk pools and for the sickest to self select into specific risk pools that, because the individual mandate lacks teeth and the exchange offerings, will not have enough healthy people off setting their consumption. Premiums will rise astronomically, the government well will run dry and unless you think Democrats are going to gain a supermajority in both houses increasing subsidies is not going to happen. The thing is going to implode, especially since the law does absolutely nothing about medical cost inflation, which is the actual true problem that needs to be addressed (uninsured people are simply a result of people being priced out of the insurance market due to medical cost inflation).

The saddest part of all of this, I think if it were called "Bushcare" and Bush had passed this exact same law in 2007, I think Washington would at least have the stomach to fix it.

[Latrinsorm]

No they don't, it is in a business' self interest to do what their customers want, which is generally the "right" thing.There are three problems with this statement:

1. No entity always does what is in its self-interest. There are times it is unwilling or incapable of doing so, and there are times it simply does not know.

2. It is in a business' self interest for its customers to believe it is giving them what they want. Enron workers happily made 401k contributions, for instance.

3. What the mob wants is not generally the right thing (that's why we don't have mob rule in the first place) and even if it was businesses have no way of knowing what that is. If they did, why would businesses ever release busts? Windows ME, Vista, 8, I could go on.

[ClydeR]

U.S. officials for the first time disclosed insurance prices that will be offered through new federally run health-care exchanges starting Oct. 1, showing that young, healthy buyers likely will pay more than they do currently while older, sicker consumers should get a break.

The plans, offered under the health-care overhaul to people who don't get insurance through an employer or government program, in many cases provide broader coverage than current policies.

Costs will vary widely from state to state and for different types of consumers. Government subsidies will cut costs for some lower-income consumers.

More... (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303983904579095731139251304.html)

A graphic in the article lists basic rates for states that have opted to let the federal government run their exchanges. Specific plans and rates for states on the federal exchanges will be released on October 1 at healthcare.gov (http://www.healthcare.gov).


And another article..


Wednesday's report is the latest review of exchanges' rates and policies from HHS and various states. Most have shown lower rates than anticipated, as more insurers have entered the markets and pegged their prices to capture more customers. The Obama administration estimates that 7 million uninsured Americans will use the exchanges to buy insurance in the six-month enrollment period that starts next week and ends March 1.

"Individual markets in way too many markets were dominated by one or two insurers," HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said, adding that they now have an average of 53 plans to choose from. "The bottom line is that January 1 will be a new day for millions of Americans."

More... (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/25/federal-health-insurance-premiums-lower/2863401/)

[ClydeR]

Frankly, CBO has already stated that Obamacare will cost at least 2x what originally was promised.


A lot of people would like to read that, if there is a link.

[Back]

Here is a tool you can use to calculate your healthcare cost. It gives the estimate based on the Silver level. We also have Gold (more expensive) and Bronze (less expensive) options.

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

If you already have healthcare from employment, or buy your own, you do not need to change anything.

[Methais]

If you already have healthcare from employment, or buy your own, you do not need to change anything.

http://freakoutnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Obama-laughing1.jpg

[kutter]

So let me see if I understand, it will cost $10000 a year to cover my wife and I if I wanted in on this little experiment, and that is only at a 70% coverage rate, God only knows what the Gold plan would cost.

That is completely absurd, that would be something like 30 doctors visits a year to equal that. Since my wife and I typically go to the doctor about once a year, that hardly makes any sense. Especially when Docs give a HUGE discount on out of pocket payers. Compared to out of pocket it would be more like 60 office visits a year. I know, I know, 'But what if you have to go to the hospital?' Catastrophic insurance is a much better solution than this goat rope. If I did not already have health insurance, I would definitely rather pay the fine than buy the insurance.

I was curious so I looked up health insurance rates, I can get a $0 deductible plan with a $35 co-pay and pay the fine and still cost less than obamacare, yeah, obamacare sounds like it makes a lot of sense.

[Jarvan]

So let me see if I understand, it will cost $10000 a year to cover my wife and I if I wanted in on this little experiment, and that is only at a 70% coverage rate, God only knows what the Gold plan would cost.

That is completely absurd, that would be something like 30 doctors visits a year to equal that. Since my wife and I typically go to the doctor about once a year, that hardly makes any sense. Especially when Docs give a HUGE discount on out of pocket payers. Compared to out of pocket it would be more like 60 office visits a year. I know, I know, 'But what if you have to go to the hospital?' Catastrophic insurance is a much better solution than this goat rope. If I did not already have health insurance, I would definitely rather pay the fine than buy the insurance.

I was curious so I looked up health insurance rates, I can get a $0 deductible plan with a $35 co-pay and pay the fine and still cost less than obamacare, yeah, obamacare sounds like it makes a lot of sense.

It's simple. Don't get it. Pay the fine.. er.. penalty, and IF you get seriously sick/injured. Buy insurance then.

Problem solved.

[Back]

So let me see if I understand, it will cost $10000 a year to cover my wife and I if I wanted in on this little experiment, and that is only at a 70% coverage rate, God only knows what the Gold plan would cost.

That is completely absurd, that would be something like 30 doctors visits a year to equal that. Since my wife and I typically go to the doctor about once a year, that hardly makes any sense. Especially when Docs give a HUGE discount on out of pocket payers. Compared to out of pocket it would be more like 60 office visits a year. I know, I know, 'But what if you have to go to the hospital?' Catastrophic insurance is a much better solution than this goat rope. If I did not already have health insurance, I would definitely rather pay the fine than buy the insurance.

I was curious so I looked up health insurance rates, I can get a $0 deductible plan with a $35 co-pay and pay the fine and still cost less than obamacare, yeah, obamacare sounds like it makes a lot of sense.

The way I read it is $5070 for two adults. Thats $211 a month per person. If you make less you get more tax credit. If you earn more you can probably find insurance cheaper. If you buy your own you pay no penalty.

[kutter]

Actually in Louisiana for two adults, a 47YOM and 54YOF it is almost 10K a year in obamacare. But you are correct, if I bought the private policy, I would not have to pay the fine, which begs the question, why do we need obamacare in the first place. The private sector can do it better and cheaper, but that would mean people would have to accept responsibility for their actions and take steps to prepare for eventualities, instead of relying upon someone else to do it for them.

Jarvan stated the reason it will never work though. If I am 23, just graduated college and am healthy, why would I buy insurance. When I was that age the only reason I went to the Doc was because Uncle Sam said I had to, the military is funny that way. And if you get sick, just buy it then. How is it ever going to get payed for that way? It is a money pit, the likes of which the US has never seen.

[Back]

Actually in Louisiana for two adults, a 47YOM and 54YOF it is almost 10K a year in obamacare. But you are correct, if I bought the private policy, I would not have to pay the fine, which begs the question, why do we need obamacare in the first place. The private sector can do it better and cheaper, but that would mean people would have to accept responsibility for their actions and take steps to prepare for eventualities, instead of relying upon someone else to do it for them.

Jarvan stated the reason it will never work though. If I am 23, just graduated college and am healthy, why would I buy insurance. When I was that age the only reason I went to the Doc was because Uncle Sam said I had to, the military is funny that way. And if you get sick, just buy it then. How is it ever going to get payed for that way? It is a money pit, the likes of which the US has never seen.

Well, the ACA is designed to help people with low income and no health insurance through their jobs. If you have insurance and can already afford insurance you don't need to apply.

And ugh about LA. I was using national average which came up as half. I'd talk to Bobby Jindal about that.

As to the other part about young people... they can still get involved in their parent's plans, if their income is low the cost would be subsidized, and the fine is so low that it is cheaper to pay the fine and forget about it if that is their choice.

Also, when more people use the exchange the rates should go down for everyone.

[ClydeR]

It's simple. Don't get it. Pay the fine.. er.. penalty, and IF you get seriously sick/injured. Buy insurance then.

Problem solved.

That is good advice if you know in advance that you won't get sick until the annual open enrollment period.

If you don't already have coverage through your job, your spouse's job or your parent's insurance, then you can apply for coverage on the exchanges, but only during the annual "open enrollment (https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/open-enrollment-period/)" period, which for the first year only is six months starting on October 1 and for every later year is approximately two months starting in October. There are some (https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/special-enrollment-period/) special (https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/qualifying-life-event/) exceptions for major life changes, but you should not count on qualifying for those.

If you apply for coverage outside of the open enrollment period, you won't be able to use the exchanges to find coverage and you'll have to deal directly with the insurance companies. Even then, Obamacare prohibits most insurance plans from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions, but you will not qualify for any premium subsidies, even if your income is low enough that you would owe the minimum 2%, which might be the case if you are sick. The premium subsidies are available for people with an income below 400% of the poverty level.

If you do not buy at least a silver plan through the exchanges, then you will not be eligible for the "cost sharing reductions" (https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/cost-sharing-reduction/) available to some low income people. The cost sharing reductions reduce your deductible and out-of-pocked amount, if your income is below 250% of the poverty level.

If you do not want to buy the basic bronze plan, then you could consider a "catastrophic plan (https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/catastrophic-health-plan/)," which will be available to people under age 30.

You'll be able to see your options with the actual true dollar amounts starting Tuesday at http://www.healthcare.gov

[Tgo01]

Well, the ACA is designed to help people with low income and no health insurance through their jobs.

I thought the AFFORDABLE Care Act was designed to lower the cost of healthcare?


And ugh about LA.... I'd talk to Bobby Jindal about that.

...


As to the other part about young people... they can still get involved in their parent's plans, if their income is low the cost would be subsidized

I thought just college students can stay on their parents' plan, is it all kids?


Also, when more people use the exchange the rates should go down for everyone.

...

[Thondalar]

It's simple. Don't get it. Pay the fine.. er.. penalty, and IF you get seriously sick/injured. Buy insurance then.

Problem solved.

Even better than that. Claim you are opting out of the insurance due to religious reasons (a major loophole they left in) and not pay anything (tax, fine, whatever you want to call it), and then get it once you come down with something long-term/terminal.

Like Social Security, Obamacare is essentially a ponzi scheme that is not sustainable over the long term. Once everyone is in the wagon, who pulls it?

5730

5731

[Back]

I thought the AFFORDABLE Care Act was designed to lower the cost of healthcare?

It does for people with low incomes and no insurance through work. Eventually with people buying from the exchange the cost should go down for everyone. Then, if that does happen, health care costs across the board should go down.

I won't be using it because what I already pay is lower than the estimate for my state, income, age, with zero subsidies. But as time moves on I'll be watching to see if my cost through the exchange does go down.


Even better than that. Claim you are opting out of the insurance due to religious reasons (a major loophole they left in) and not pay anything (tax, fine, whatever you want to call it), and then get it once you come down with something long-term/terminal.

Like Social Security, Obamacare is essentially a ponzi scheme that is not sustainable over the long term. Once everyone is in the wagon, who pulls it?

Have you really looked at it to understand it? Social security has not failed.

[Thondalar]

Have you really looked at it to understand it? Social security has not failed.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

[Tgo01]

It does for people with low incomes and no insurance through work. Eventually with people buying from the exchange the cost should go down for everyone. Then, if that does happen, health care costs across the board should go down.

What about the bill makes you think prices will go down as a whole? Sure maybe some people will end up paying less but overall there is nothing in the bill to indicate costs will go down overall.

[Thondalar]

What about the bill makes you think prices will go down as a whole? Sure maybe some people will end up paying less but overall there is nothing in the bill to indicate costs will go down overall.

Lets not also forget how rampant fraud is in Medicare now....now we're going to put the entire healthcare system in the hands of the government? What could possible go wrong?

[Thondalar]

That is good advice if you know in advance that you won't get sick until the annual open enrollment period.

If you don't already have coverage through your job, your spouse's job or your parent's insurance, then you can apply for coverage on the exchanges, but only during the annual "open enrollment (https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/open-enrollment-period/)" period, which for the first year only is six months starting on October 1 and for every later year is approximately two months starting in October. There are some (https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/special-enrollment-period/) special (https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/qualifying-life-event/) exceptions for major life changes, but you should not count on qualifying for those.

If you apply for coverage outside of the open enrollment period, you won't be able to use the exchanges to find coverage and you'll have to deal directly with the insurance companies. Even then, Obamacare prohibits most insurance plans from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions, but you will not qualify for any premium subsidies, even if your income is low enough that you would owe the minimum 2%, which might be the case if you are sick. The premium subsidies are available for people with an income below 400% of the poverty level.

If you do not buy at least a silver plan through the exchanges, then you will not be eligible for the "cost sharing reductions" (https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/cost-sharing-reduction/) available to some low income people. The cost sharing reductions reduce your deductible and out-of-pocked amount, if your income is below 250% of the poverty level.

If you do not want to buy the basic bronze plan, then you could consider a "catastrophic plan (https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/catastrophic-health-plan/)," which will be available to people under age 30.

You'll be able to see your options with the actual true dollar amounts starting Tuesday at http://www.healthcare.gov

I'm going to laugh my ass off when this finally takes affect and thousands upon thousands of "low-information voters" get fined on their tax returns. Suckers. Hope and change, bitches.

[Back]

What about the bill makes you think prices will go down as a whole? Sure maybe some people will end up paying less but overall there is nothing in the bill to indicate costs will go down overall.

My only indication that that would happen is what happened with requiring everyone to have car insurance. More buyers, more sellers, then lower costs.

But, I'm no expert, obviously.

[Methais]

It does for people with low incomes and no insurance through work. Eventually with people buying from the exchange the cost should go down for everyone. Then, if that does happen, health care costs across the board should go down.

You seriously are buying into that bullshit Obama sold it as?

I bet you think you'll be able to keep your existing plan and your doctor and all that too.

Obama sold this as saying that the average family would see a $2500 decrease in cost. Except instead, the cost is going up for everybody.

Obamacare is intended to fail so that the government can "save" us after with a single payer system.

I don't think Obamacare will ever be fully implemented anyway.

[Back]

You seriously are buying into that bullshit Obama sold it as?

I bet you think you'll be able to keep your existing plan and your doctor and all that too.

Obama sold this as saying that the average family would see a $2500 decrease in cost. Except instead, the cost is going up for everybody.

Obamacare is intended to fail so that the government can "save" us after with a single payer system.

I don't think Obamacare will ever be fully implemented anyway.

Do you have a rational explanation or is this just your emotional response?

Keeping your existing plan is a real option.

You honestly think this is something that the authors intended to fail? Who in the world would do that and to what end?

Defunding it now will cost more than it will save.

Educate yourself rather than listen to people who lie to you. The information is out there. You can make your own decision about it.

[Methais]

Educate yourself rather than listen to people who lie to you. The information is out there. You can make your own decision about it.

http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd456/lancewen/Photos%20of%20irony/ironic-toast.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Have you really looked at it to understand it? Social security has not failed.
http://persephonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/takei-lol.gif



Educate yourself rather than listen to people who lie to you.


http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqo7ajom9z1qblprr.gif



But, I'm no expert, obviously.

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120324224649/mlpfanart/images/a/ab/3879_-_animated_gif_chuck_norris_dodgeball_thumbs_up.gif

[Whirlin]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-who-understands-8-of-obamacare-vigorously-defe,34022/

[Atlanteax]

Back : "all I care about is that the poor and the uninsured-but-have-money get access to healthcare, paid for by others ... everyone else can go F themselves"

[Methais]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-who-understands-8-of-obamacare-vigorously-defe,34022/

Can we refer to Backlash as Daniel Seaver from now on?

[Warriorbird]

Back : "all I care about is that the poor and the uninsured-but-have-money get access to healthcare, paid for by others ... everyone else can go F themselves"

Kind of like the "Everybody go F themselves" crafted by the people who don't want to make some provision for healthcare/healthcare costs, thus making the rest of us pay for it? Big Republican donors, Walmart.

[kutter]

There is a HUGELY simple way to lower health care cost, all it takes is a few steps:

1. Allow nationwide sale of insurance

2. Deregulate the industry.

3. Tort reform.

It really is that simple. If we want to talk about healthcare for the poor, it is a much better plan to get the poor out of poverty so that they can support themselves and be a contributing member of society.

Why is it that not one of these things is in obamacare? Anyone with even half reasonable thought process must recognize they will lower cost. That is because the intention of the liberals is not to lower cost, Obama stated the goal in a speech before the AFL-CIO in 2003, they want a single payer system.

[Whirlin]

There is a HUGELY simple way to lower health care cost, all it takes is a few steps:

1. Allow nationwide sale of insurance

2. Deregulate the industry.

3. Tort reform.

It really is that simple. If we you to talk about healthcare for the poor, it is a much better plan to get the poor out of poverty so that they can support themselves and be a contributing member of society.

The problem is that nationalizing health care is that each state has specific requirements on health care. There are also additional provisions on a state-by-state basis for information protection, etc... I know in MA, we have MA CMR 201, requiring basic IT security (such as encryption in transit and at rest) for financial and health records of MA residents. This would result in revoking state's rights, which has already been one of the complaints about the Affordable Care Act from the Republicans.

That being said... I would anticipate those items that you highlighted as being eventual goals of any national health system. I always viewed the Affordable Care Act as a way for the government to get their foot in the door in the health care system, and to have additional incentives to pass such reforms.

[kutter]

The problem is that nationalizing health care is that each state has specific requirements on health care. There are also additional provisions on a state-by-state basis for information protection, etc... I know in MA, we have MA CMR 201, requiring basic IT security (such as encryption in transit and at rest) for financial and health records of MA residents. This would result in revoking state's rights, which has already been one of the complaints about the Affordable Care Act from the Republicans.

That being said... I would anticipate those items that you highlighted as being eventual goals of any national health system. I always viewed the Affordable Care Act as a way for the government to get their foot in the door in the health care system, and to have additional incentives to pass such reforms.

Whirlin, if the liberals had ever engaged with the conservatives in the crafting of the bill in any way, shape, or form, I might say you are correct about reforming it. But as we see right now, the plan is not ready, anyone with half a brain recognizes this, the conservatives have asked for a one year delay of implementation, and the liberals are screaming bloody murder and will shut down the government because of it.

As for the requirements in individual states, so do car insurance companies, yet they manage to sell across state lines, or even better, as much as someone who supports states rights hates to say do this, come up with a federal standard, which would also aid in the reduction of cost, since insurance companies would not have to have 30 or so different programs to support.

[ClydeR]

As for the requirements in individual states, so do car insurance companies, yet they manage to sell across state lines, or even better, as much as someone who supports states rights hates to say do this, come up with a federal standard, which would also aid in the reduction of cost, since insurance companies would not have to have 30 or so different programs to support.

There are both health insurance and auto insurance companies that operate in multiple states. They are both subject to the laws and regulations of each state where they sell the insurance. When people say that they want health insurance companies to be able to "sell across state lines," what they really mean is that they want health insurance companies to be subject to only the laws and regulations of the state where the insurance company's main office is located.

Instead of auto insurance, a better comparison would be credit cards. I bet your credit card issuer is from South Dakota or Delaware.

[Back]

Big post!

Like most Americans, you've probably heard of "Obamacare," but you're not exactly sure what it is. According to your uncle's Facebook posts, it sounds pretty scary, like maybe it's going to turn America into a Kenyan Soviet Union or something.


Well, good news: Obamacare is probably not going to do that! What a relief, huh? What other mysteries about the new health-care law can we clear up for you? Huffington Post health care reporter Jeffrey Young has 14 answers, for starters:


1. What is Obamacare, exactly?
"Obamacare" is a nickname for the Affordable Care Act (http://kff.org/health-reform/fact-sheet/summary-of-new-health-reform-law/), a controversial law Congress passed and President Obama signed in 2010 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/health/policy/24health.html?_r=0). To the chagrin of Republican opponents, who are still trying to kill the law, the Supreme Court declared (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/supreme-court-health-care-decision_n_1634217.html) it constitutional in 2012.
Its goal is to get health insurance to more Americans, 48 million of whom currently don't have any (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/census-uninsured-2012_n_3941339.html). This includes making it easier for people who aren't insured through work to buy their own insurance.


Obamacare also ends some notorious insurance practices. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/health-care-reform-rules_n_2165152.html) Now insurers can't exclude people with pre-existing conditions, can't kick patients off their plans when they run up big medical bills, and can't set dollar limits on how much care they'll cover. The law also says consumers' out-of-pocket costs generally can't exceed $6,350 for a single person or $12,700 for a family in a year. If a serious illness or accident creates costs above that amount, insurance pays all the bills.


Obamacare also sets "minimum essential benefits" (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/20/us-usa-healthcare-benefits-idUSBRE91J11M20130220) every insurance plan must cover, including prescription drugs and maternity care. Many plans today don't include such benefits. Health screenings and birth control are available at no cost when you get them.



2. What if the government shuts down because Republicans want to stop Obamacare?
It doesn't really matter (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/26/government-shutdown-obamacare_n_3994691.html). Ironically, the program will continue even if the federal government is technically closed for business.


3. Why is it called "Obamacare?"
Because Obama pushed for its passage. Republican opponents first started using the term as an insult, but then Obama embraced it. Now everybody calls it Obamacare. Although perhaps Obama should reconsider, as "Obamacare" doesn't poll nearly as well as "Affordable Care Act."

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/27/obamacare-affordable-care-act_n_4002225.html)

4. So do I need to do anything?
Probably not, if you're one of the roughly 80 percent of Americans who gets health insurance through their job or a family member's job, or is enrolled in a government program (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/23/obamacare-change_n_3975425.html) like Medicare, Medicaid, or the Children's Health Insurance Program. Congratulations, you might be done with this article.
If you're really worried about it, you should check with your employer about how your benefits might change (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-19/obamacare-unleashes-benefit-changes-from-companies.html) in 2014.


And if you buy your own insurance, or if you aren't insured, then you will likely need to know and do some things.


5. OK, I buy my own insurance, what do I need to know? What do I do?
You may find that your current plan isn't available next year because it doesn't meet the new standards set by Obamacare. That's good news because you'll probably be getting better health insurance. Bad news: you may have to pay more. You'll be able to shop for a new plan on new health-insurance exchanges.


6. What's a health insurance exchange? Sounds communist!
"Exchange" is the technocratic term for the government's new health-insurance stores, which are run either by your state or the federal government. Also called "marketplaces," these web sites let you comparison-shop for various health plans (https://www.healthcare.gov/what-is-the-health-insurance-marketplace/). Massachusetts has had an exchange since 2006 and has the lowest uninsured rate in the U.S.


The exchanges are also the main way for people to get help paying for their coverage (http://www.cbpp.org/files/QA-on-Premium-Credits.pdf).


To find out what kind of policies are available, and what kind of help you're eligible to get, you'll have to give the exchange some basic personal information like your age, where you live, your income, family size and whether you smoke.


The exchanges are open to most everyone, but people who have health benefits at work or are in government programs like Medicaid are probably better off keeping what they have (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/23/obamacare-change_n_3975425.html).


Click here (https://www.healthcare.gov/what-is-the-marketplace-in-my-state/) to find the exchange for your home state.


7. A government-run health-insurance market? What could possibly go wrong?? That is sarcasm, by the way.
Sarcasm noted. Not shockingly, there have been glitches (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/26/obamacare-glitches_n_3997274.html?utm_hp_ref=tw) in the online exchanges. Officials hope to fix them between the time they open for business on Oct. 1 and Jan. 1, when coverage starts under the new plans.


8. OK, so how much will health insurance cost me under Obamacare?
Alas there's no simple answer to this question. Insurance premiums will vary a lot. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/25/obamacare-premiums_n_3984979.html?1380081670). The national average price for a high-deductible plan is $249 a month, not counting subsidies -- but coverage like that would cost $144 in Minnesota and $425 in Wyoming. Rates are based on age, geographic location, family size and, sometimes, tobacco use. The insurance plans will differ a lot by monthly premium and by what share of medical bills you have to pay out of pocket.
The good news is that, under the law, women can't be charged higher rates (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/obamacare-women_n_3541318.html) than men, as is the norm in most states now. Older people (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/20/obamacare-pre-existing-conditions_n_3943611.html)also can't be made to pay more than three times what younger people pay now. Some states currently let insurers charge older people five times more than younger consumers, or even greater.
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1380139/thumbs/o-OBAMACARE-COSTS-570.jpg?6


9. So how will the government help me pay for health insurance?
It gives you tax credits, based on your income (http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/), to help cover the cost. If you take the credit in advance, the government sends money straight to your insurance company to cover some of your premium. Or you can pay the full cost and claim the credit when you file your taxes. Tax credits are available to people who earn between the federal poverty level and four times that income, or about $11,500 to about $46,000 for a single person.


Extra discounts are available to those who earn up to 250 percent of poverty, or $28,725, for out-of-pocket expenses like deductibles and co-payments.
Depending on where you live (http://kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/state-decisions-for-creating-health-insurance-exchanges-and-expanding-medicaid/), you also might qualify for Medicaid, the joint federal-state health care program for the poor, if you earn up to 133 percent of poverty, or about $15,300 for a single person. Only about half of states are using Obamcare money to expand Medicaid, though.


10. What's happens to me if I defy Obama's socialist takeover and refuse to get health insurance?
The law says nearly every legal U.S. resident must get health coverage or pay a tax penalty. This is the dreaded "individual mandate (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/23/health-care-reform-mandate_n_1375413.html)." That's to make sure fewer people have to get care at hospitals that isn't paid for or results in big debts. It's a conservative idea (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/28/individual-health-care-insurance-mandate-has-long-checkered-past/), believe it or not.


If you already have health insurance, you obviously don't have to worry about this. If you earn less than $10,000 a year, you don't have to worry about this. If you can't find a health plan that costs 8 percent or less of your annual income, you don't have to worry about this. There are a handful of other exemptions to the law (http://www.irs.gov/uac/Questions-and-Answers-on-the-Individual-Shared-Responsibility-Provision).


11. How much will this penalty be?
It will start out at $95 or 1 percent of your income, whichever is higher, (unless you make less than $10,000, in which case there's no penalty). The penalty starts rising in 2015 and 2016, ending up at $695 or 2.5 percent of income. The IRS has more details on this fun penalty here (http://www.irs.gov/uac/Questions-and-Answers-on-the-Individual-Shared-Responsibility-Provision).


This penalty will not require you to write a check: The IRS will take it out of your tax refund, if you have any. The IRS can't come after you if you don't pay it one year, but interest could build up (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/13/readers-ask-we-answer-what-happens-if-you-dont-pay-obamacares-tax-penalty/) over time. No matter what, though, you can't go to jail over it.


12. Can I keep my doctor under Obamacare?
There's nothing in Obamacare (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-bergthold/should-you-believe-the-koch-brothers_b_3570032.html) that dictates what health-care provider you see. Same as always, different insurance policies have different doctors that are "in-network" or "out-of-network." You've just got to make sure that your doctor is in the network of whatever policy you get, or expect to pay more to visit her (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/features/insuring-your-health/2012/out-of-network-care-michelle-andrews-041712.aspx).


Be warned, though: Many of the health plans sold in Obamacare exchanges will have fewer choices of providers (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/health/lower-health-insurance-premiums-to-come-at-cost-of-fewer-choices.html) than those typically offered by employers. This is the downside of keeping costs low -- although for many people without insurance, their provider choice is limited to the emergency room (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/romney-health-remarks-ign_n_1914435.html). Exchanges have been trying to broaden their lists of providers (http://www.ctmirror.org/story/2013/09/18/obamacare-doctor-hospital-participation-exchange-health-plans-still-being) ahead of enrollment.


13. Who can help me learn more and sign up?
Obamacare exchanges have telephone hotlines available to walk you through the application process. HealthCare.gov (https://www.healthcare.gov/) is the federal government's main website for information and enrollment, and includes links to the state-run exchanges (https://www.healthcare.gov/what-is-the-marketplace-in-my-state/) and to local groups offering help (https://localhelp.healthcare.gov/). The federal hotline is (800) 318-2596. State-run exchanges have their own.


If this sounds too daunting to do alone, there are also Obamacare sherpas, known as "navigators," "in-person assistors" or "certified application counselors" (http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Programs-and-Initiatives/Health-Insurance-Marketplaces/assistance.html). Private organizations like Enroll America can also help (http://www.getcoveredamerica.org/). Insurance agents and brokers will be happy to take your business, too.


State health agencies and Medicaid offices also may be providing help, as will community health centers (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/10/community-health-centers-obamacare_n_3573397.html) that mainly serve low-income and uninsured patients. Information about what to do and where to find help will be distributed from a variety of sources, including community organizations (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/obamacare-navigators_n_3761483.html), churches, charities, pharmacies, hospitals (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/23/hospitals-obamacare_n_3636850.html), doctors' offices (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/01/doctors-obamacare_n_3681965.html) and public libraries (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/obamacare-libraries_n_3529849.html). The availability of help will vary greatly from state to state: Some states have resisted Obamacare's implementation (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/florida-among-states-undercutting-health-care-enrollment.html) because of political opposition from Republican governors and lawmakers.


14. Are there any deadlines I should know about?
Open enrollment for insurance plans for 2014 (https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/open-enrollment-period/) begins Oct. 1 and runs through March 31. If you want a health insurance policy that's in place on New Year's Day, you have to make a choice by Dec. 15. After then, you have to wait a few weeks between picking a plan and using it. Next year, you'll have less time because enrollment for 2015 health plans runs from Oct. 15 through Dec. 7 in 2014.

From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/30/obamacare-questions-answers_n_3977534.html

[Whirlin]

There are both health insurance and auto insurance companies that operate in multiple states. They are both subject to the laws and regulations of each state where they sell the insurance. When people say that they want health insurance companies to be able to "sell across state lines," what they really mean is that they want health insurance companies to be subject to only the laws and regulations of the state where the insurance company's main office is located.

Instead of auto insurance, a better comparison would be credit cards. I bet your credit card issuer is from South Dakota or Delaware.
There's slightly more to it... The laws the corporation are subject to are based in the state it's encorporated in... Furthermore, from a tax perspective, you're subject to state tax most heavily in the state where you're encorporated. But definitely on the right track.

But, I think if a similar stance was taken on a nationalized selling of healthcare, we would see an overall decrease in coverage, as all companies would likely jump to the state with the fewest required healthcare provisions, which would result in a decrease to both care and medical record security. I think the safest bet would be for the laws/regulations evened out, and a baseline applied to all, but I don't think that's politically realistic, because it would inherently supersede state's rights. And simply applying the heaviest regulated state's requirements to all would likely drive up prices to everyone.


But, one other thing that I would point out, that I'm sure was likely covered in the 23 pages, is that any change in regulations to any industry is likely to increase prices to the consumer. Any change houses an amount of uncertainty. Uncertainty that subsequently needs to be researched, analyzed, and new paths formed as a result of the changes. If a company is operating a lean process, which most companies are due to the recession, then even the analysis would require additional headcount, experts, consultants, etc, to determine the changes in infrastructure/applications/processes to determine the impact of the change. And that analysis alone is expensive on the short term, which subsequently impacts the consumers. I'd be willing to bet that even deregulation of the health care industry would result in increased prices on the short term while the market is adjusting to the new requirements, but would likely settle down to a point where it is overall lower afterwards.


In regards to the writers of the Affordable Care Act... Jonathan Gruber and John McDonough were the names that turned up most in a couple google searches. Both writers for of a good portion of the act, as they were the writers of RomneyCare, and were adopting the existing MA based bill to a national stage. Bills aren't exactly drafted by the politicians themselves, just dirtied later on... I'm not sure why you want conservatives (or even liberals for that matter) messing with a bill too much that was created predominantly by subject matter experts.

[Atlanteax]

Back : "I am going to help push this onto you even if you do not want to participate"

[Whirlin]

tl;dr

Although, I was gonna mention somewhere that it's entertaining to me that Obamacare typically has a 10% lower approval rating than the Affordable Care Act.

[Tgo01]

If you earn less than $10,000 a year, you don't have to worry about this. If you can't find a health plan that costs 8 percent or less of your annual income, you don't have to worry about this. There are a handful of other exemptions to the law.


The law says nearly every legal U.S. resident must get health coverage or pay a tax penalty. This is the dreaded "individual mandate." That's to make sure fewer people have to get care at hospitals that isn't paid for or results in big debts.

I laughed.

[Back]

Back : "I am going to help push this onto you even if you do not want to participate"

Do you have healthcare?

[Atlanteax]

Do you have healthcare?

Took the cheapest one available thru work.

Unfortunately I do not have the option of asking my employer to remove my healthcare 'benefits' and increase my $salary by the respective amount.

[Methais]

Someone get Backlash some pom poms already.

[Back]

Someone get Backlash some pom poms already.

Actually I'm of the opinion of lets try it before we trash it. If it does not work then trash it.

[kutter]

Actually I'm of the opinion of lets try it before we trash it. If it does not work then trash it.

The problem I have with that is getting rid of an entitlement of any type is virtually impossible, it makes curing cancer seem simple by comparison.

[Atlanteax]

The problem I have with that is getting rid of an entitlement of any type is virtually impossible, it makes curing cancer seem simple by comparison.

Which was the Democrat' game plan when they forced it thru Congress.

I wonder why more is not being mentioned of how Obamacare was ruled to be a tax.

[Back]

Which was the Democrat' game plan when they forced it thru Congress.

I wonder why more is not being mentioned of how Obamacare was ruled to be a tax.

You can thank Justice John Roberts for that.

[Warriorbird]

Which was the Democrat' game plan when they forced it thru Congress.

I wonder why more is not being mentioned of how Obamacare was ruled to be a tax.

I'm somehow doubting it, given the Supreme Court. If it were true though, it'd be up there with the Republicans' clever plan to complain about anything that's passed by Obama, even Republican legislation.

[Jarvan]

What about the bill makes you think prices will go down as a whole? Sure maybe some people will end up paying less but overall there is nothing in the bill to indicate costs will go down overall.

Projected AVERAGE costs are 16% less then they expected. At the same time, they also expected costs to be about 150-175% more then what they were. So.. In Governmentese the costs have went down.

[Back]

Projected AVERAGE costs are 16% less then they expected. At the same time, they also expected costs to be about 150-175% more then what they were. So.. In Governmentese the costs have went down.

Do you have a report that cites this?

[Jarvan]

Do you have a report that cites this?

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2013/MarketplacePremiums/ib_marketplace_premiums.cfm#_ftn5

This states the 16% lower rate then they expected.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2013/MarketCompetitionPremiums/ib_premiums_update.cfm

This one is where in 2009 they expected a 54% increase in rates.

So... we expect a 54% increase, and it's 16% less then the 54% (not 38% mind you, 16% of 54%)

I prob used the wrong % in my statement, should have said they expected costs to be 50-75% more then what they were. But if you change more to of, then it still works.

[Jarvan]

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2013/MarketplacePremiums/ib_marketplace_premiums.cfm#_ftn5

This states the 16% lower rate then they expected.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2013/MarketCompetitionPremiums/ib_premiums_update.cfm

This one is where in 2009 they expected a 54% increase in rates.

So... we expect a 54% increase, and it's 16% less then the 54% (not 38% mind you, 16% of 54%)

I prob used the wrong % in my statement, should have said they expected costs to be 50-75% more then what they were. But if you change more to of, then it still works.

Also, I would like to point out, that costs have gone down on the AVERAGE, but not really. What they did is say that Old people and sick people can no longer be charged more. And now young people and healthy people can no longer be charged less. So if you are say 28 and perfectly healthy, your rates almost doubled. if you are 61 and dying of 14 diseases, your rates dropped a shit ton.

Does anyone find the simple flaw in their logic?

Basically, they want everyone to pay the same rates really... HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT WORK when it comes to insurance.

That's like if the government told car insurance companies, that they can't look at driving history or age (and the fact that very young, and very old drivers tend to have more accidents) and instead, everyone gets the same rate. So if I never had an accident, I pay the same amount as the guy that has 23 fender benders a year. Yeah.. I can TOTALLY see how that is fair.

Our elected leaders are a bunch of fucking morons. Both sides, but in this case, the Dems take the cake.

[Atlanteax]

Seems like overzealousness as for treating everyone as being exactly equal. Which rhey are when you are a government and each individual is reduced to their SS#.

[Tgo01]

Turn the government back on!!

Or else!!

[Jarvan]

Turn the government back on!!

Or else!!

Or keep it off, and see if the sky literally falls.

Actually, I am still waiting for the roaming bands of bandits that Reid promised.