| Healthcare Bill Part III; Obamacare | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 3 2014, 02:20 PM (48,641 Views) | |
| Baldo | Sep 16 2014, 08:37 AM Post #961 |
|
I have been listening to a few pundits the last few days and what they are saying it is becoming clear that businesses are not adding to their staff not wanting to reach a 50 level of employees. Thus they don't become subjected to Obama-care mandates for a while longer. They are also reducing employees hours to minus 30 hours. |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Sep 16 2014, 08:44 AM Post #962 |
|
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/09/11/obamacare-participants-worse-off-but-dont-blame-washington-blame-states-paper-says/ Obamacare Participants Worse Off, But Don’t Blame Washington — Blame States, Paper Says http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/bpea/papers/2014/early-impact-affordable-care-act-state-by-state The Early Impact of the Affordable Care Act Okay, it's a study by ...well, nobody ever heard of, but it is interesting! It's like a scorecard across the nation and the winners are the states which helped organize the redistribution of federal FREE MONEY in a manner that gave their participants the biggest FREE MONEY boost. ![]() 1st PLACE in FREE MONEY . |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Sep 16 2014, 08:47 AM Post #963 |
|
The easy way out for working on your profit margin in this economy ...the market focus is on cost cutting, not so much revenue growth! . |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Sep 16 2014, 08:59 AM Post #964 |
|
Another topic for discussions & debates for the upcoming election... http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/15/smith-obamas-big-spending-on-abortion-on-demand/print/ Obamacare’s big spending on abortion on demand Another ironclad presidential promise you can’t keep By Chris Smith - - Monday, September 15, 2014 Five years ago — almost to the day — President Obama told lawmakers and the American public in a specially called joint session of Congress on health care reform that "under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortion." Then, in an 11th-hour ploy to garner a remnant of pro-life congressional Democrats absolutely needed for passage of Obamacare, the president issued an executive order on March 24, 2010, that said: "The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to newly created health insurance exchanges." It turns out that those ironclad promises made by the president himself are absolutely untrue. Agree or disagree with public funding of abortion — a significant majority of Americans oppose it — but no one likes to be misled or deceived. At its core, the Hyde Amendment has two parts. It prohibits funding for abortion and funding for any insurance plan that includes abortion except in the case of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. A blockbuster Government Accountability Office report released Tuesday documents massive new public funding of abortion in the president's health care law. Like so many of the president's broken promises that litter the political landscape, the GAO has found that in 2014, taxpayers are funding more than 1,000 Obamacare health plans that subsidize abortion on demand — even late-term abortion — decimating the Hyde Amendment, which the president said he would honor. Among GAO's findings: Every Obamacare taxpayer-subsidized health insurance plan in New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, Rhode Island and Hawaii pays for abortion on demand. In New York, a whopping 405 out of 426 Obamacare plans subsidize abortion on demand; in California, it's 86 of 90; in Massachusetts, 109 of 111; in Oregon, 92 of 102; in Washington, D.C., 23 of 34. According to a Congressional Budget Office estimate in April, between 2014 and 2024, taxpayer subsidies to buy Obamacare health plans will total $855 billion, making taxpayers unwittingly complicit in abortion. The GAO also found that even an accounting trick embedded in Obamacare requiring premium payers to be assessed a separate monthly abortion surcharge is being completely ignored. This surcharge would have added some modicum of transparency so individuals would know whether they are purchasing a pro-life or pro-abortion health insurance plan if faithfully implemented. Then-Sen. Ben Nelson, Nebraska Democrat, summed up the plain meaning of the law: "You have to write two checks." According to the GAO, none of the 18 insurance companies it interviewed are billing the abortion surcharge separately. None. So much for the rule of law. Last year, members of Congress and some staff were barred from any further participation in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan and compelled to go on to the Obamacare exchanges. After months of misinformation, obfuscation and delay, I finally learned that of the 112 health plans offered on the exchange for my family, 103 paid for abortion on demand — a clear violation of the Smith Amendment, a Hyde-like abortion funding ban I first sponsored in 1983. Americans throughout the country have raised serious concerns that they find it nearly impossible to determine whether the plan they purchase finances the killing of unborn children. There is little or no transparency; hence, the request by several members of Congress, including House Speaker John A. Boehner, that the GAO investigate. To end Mr. Obama's new massive funding of abortion on demand, last January the House of Representatives passed my bill — the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act, HR 7. When Sen. Harry Reid was a member of the House, he was as pro-life as Henry Hyde. Now, as Senate majority leader, he has refused to even allow a vote on HR 7's Senate companion bill. On behalf of the weakest and most vulnerable, I respectfully ask that he reconsider. |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Sep 16 2014, 09:36 AM Post #965 |
|
Still hitting obstacles in the head counting process here!
It's somewhat ironic in what this report shows. They're actions are an admission that the exchange enrollment system failed, which I guess they think is just old news now, in an effort to show they are controlling how that illegal immigrant thingy is $ucking funds out of taxpayers pockets. |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Sep 16 2014, 09:51 AM Post #966 |
|
So we have a FREE MONEY system taking federal taxpayer funds to redistribute through Medicaid and insurance premium subsidies, and to give away YOUR dollars they have advertising and promotional staffs funded by federal taxpayers through grants administered by state taxpayer agencies that will benefit private insurance companies participating in the exchange. How could that fail? Did I get that correctly? |
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | Sep 16 2014, 06:47 PM Post #967 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
Lowest-Cost Insurer Drops From Minnesota Exchange http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/09/16/preferredone-pulls-out-of-mnsure-for-2015/ |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Sep 17 2014, 07:14 AM Post #968 |
|
http://gotnews.com/whoops-hhs-screws-obamacare-collaboration/ Whoops! HHS Screws Up Obamacare Collaboration http://gotnews.com/tax-mess-obamacare/ #Obamacare’s Tax Troubles Just Got Worse Any following this mess has read about the Federal Exchange still not functioning correctly and most likely read that the problem is in the "BACK END" of the system. Recall that the present operations are for the federal government to just write whatever amounts the insurance companies demand for subsidies and they called it the "honor system." The basic difference in function in how subsidies work here is: FRONT END - Customer connects, enters enrollment data including income, system determines eligibility to calculate tax credit and display plan options BACK END - System receives eligibility data from exchange, verifies eligibility, sets up prepaid premium services to company of plan applicant selected. That BACK END is the federal government function that does not work. What these articles do is show how HHS set up guidelines for States to instruct them to construct their system to work so that the BACK END could function (how to transmit data to the fed after determining ELIGIBILITY), while at the same time HHS did NOT require its own contractor building the Federal Exchange system to make its FRONT END do that. That eligibility thingy seems rather important. The FRONT END of the federal system left out subsidies for applicants using the Federal Exchange. Now, as far as the court cases are concerned, I'm not sure this makes much difference. It may show that every person involved knew that ONLY the State Exchange systems were to get subsidies from the BACK END, but the question for the courts is what the law says and if the IRS had the right to reinterpret what Congress meant for it to do. Edited by kbp, Sep 17 2014, 07:27 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| kbp | Sep 17 2014, 10:12 AM Post #969 |
|
Who needs the BACK END of the HHS Obamacare system when they can just work with the FRONT END and HONOR SYSTEM? Jokes aside, I thought there was supposed to be some type of policy requiring procedural controls on Exchange plan approvals. Oh well, it's just money from others ....YOU! ADD: I'm waiting for the "pill excuse" we heard ...it's free, paid for by the insurance companies because they save money preventing costly birth procedures! Edited by kbp, Sep 17 2014, 10:14 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Sep 18 2014, 06:37 AM Post #970 |
|
Panel Urges Overhauling Health Care at End of Life The country’s system for handling end-of-life care is largely broken and should be overhauled at almost every level, a national panel concluded in a report released on Wednesday. The 21-member nonpartisan committee, appointed by the Institute of Medicine, the independent research arm of the National Academy of Sciences, called for sweeping change. “The bottom line is the health care system is poorly designed to meet the needs of patients near the end of life,” said David M. Walker, a Republican and a former United States comptroller general, who was a chairman of the panel. “The current system is geared towards doing more, more, more, and that system by definition is not necessarily consistent with what patients want, and is also more costly.”. Many of the report’s recommendations could be accomplished without legislation. For example, the panel urged insurers to reimburse health care providers for conversations with patients on advance care planning. Medicare, which covers 50 million Americans and whose members account for about 80 percent of deaths each year, is considering doing just that, prompted by a recent request from the American Medical Association. Some private insurers are already covering such conversations, and many more would if Medicare did...snipped http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/science/end-of-life-care-needs-sweeping-overhaul-panel-says.html Those darn Seniors who live too long. Abort babies, abort those Seniors, of course Obama & his staff will get gold-plated care for life Edited by Baldo, Sep 18 2014, 06:39 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| abb | Sep 18 2014, 06:42 AM Post #971 |
|
Death Panels. Sarah Palin told us this stuff years ago. |
![]() |
|
| wingedwheel | Sep 18 2014, 07:28 AM Post #972 |
|
Not Pictured Above
|
And they still mock her. |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Sep 18 2014, 09:58 AM Post #973 |
|
46 percent of doctors give Obamacare a 'D' or 'F' Forty-six percent of doctors give President Obama's healthcare law a "D" or an "F," according to a new survey from the Physicians Foundation. In contrast, just 25 percent of those surveyed gave the law an "A" or a "B." The findings come from a survey that was emailed to "virtually every physician in the United States with an email address on record with the American Medical Association" this March through June as the law's major provisions were taking effect, and received more than 20,000 responses from doctors. In their comments that were included (but kept anonymous) in the report, a number of doctors complained about the vast amount of bureaucracy that has been added to the medical profession. "Get government OUT of healthcare," one doctor wrote....snipped http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2553569 Watch the video clip at the site. Policies were better before Obama-care |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Sep 18 2014, 10:04 AM Post #974 |
|
Putting a value on life! Should the "Death Panel" types put a set value on time for life, I can't wait to see the factors used for devaluation through age. |
![]() |
|
| LTC8K6 | Sep 19 2014, 09:27 PM Post #975 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
This stuff is infuriating... http://twitchy.com/2014/09/19/its-inexcusable-fed-up-citizen-details-her-obamacare-nightmare/
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |








11:54 AM Jul 13