"Obamacare"

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

jfc this is the biggest collection of one track mindset mouth breathers on the internet outside the hannity forum. Beems is constantly clownsuiting you people with actual facts about how this law works and you only combat him with insular thought talking points which leave out 90% of the facts to construct a world where Obamacare can only fail.  People are missing everything from costs, to availability, to access in this 'discussion' because they are only reciting talking points instead of actually understanding how this set of laws work.  But why should any of you care about what is actually going to happen when you have talking points to consume like a fat person at Mcdonalds.  I'll await the next set of posts which in one breath demand things original Obamacare wanted which were decried as socialism and in another bitch about any attempt to fix this pos healthcare system with bullshit talking points about the 'free market'. y

Pretty sure you're joking, right? Anyway, there have been plenty of facts posted in this thread about (1) how premiums have increased dramatically in certain states due to Obamacare, and (2) how the Obama Administration has unilaterally decided to not enforce and/or delay enforcement of certain provisions of the law.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Hey look, more facts! Obama delays yet another provision of his super awesome healthcare law!!! I really detest that Obama keeps obstructing this law from "providing healthcare to millions of people."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/us/a-limit-on-consumer-costs-is-delayed-in-health-care-law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

WASHINGTON — In another setback for President Obama’s health care initiative, the administration has delayed until 2015 a significant consumer protection in the law that limits how much people may have to spend on their own health care.

The limit on out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles and co-payments, was not supposed to exceed $6,350 for an individual and $12,700 for a family. But under a little-noticed ruling, federal officials have granted a one-year grace period to some insurers, allowing them to set higher limits, or no limit at all on some costs, in 2014.

The grace period has been outlined on the Labor Department’s Web site since February, but was obscured in a maze of legal and bureaucratic language that went largely unnoticed. When asked in recent days about the language — which appeared as an answer to one of 137 “frequently asked questions about Affordable Care Act implementation” — department officials confirmed the policy.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

jfc this is the biggest collection of one track mindset mouth breathers on the internet outside the hannity forum. Beems is constantly clownsuiting you people with actual facts about how this law works and you only combat him with insular thought talking points which leave out 90% of the facts to construct a world where Obamacare can only fail.  People are missing everything from costs, to availability, to access in this 'discussion' because they are only reciting talking points instead of actually understanding how this set of laws work.  But why should any of you care about what is actually going to happen when you have talking points to consume like a fat person at Mcdonalds.  I'll await the next set of posts which in one breath demand things original Obamacare wanted which were decried as socialism and in another bitch about any attempt to fix this pos healthcare system with bullshit talking points about the 'free market'. y

Top notch parody post, Edna.

Folks, this is how you bbs in THE TOOLBOX

[Stupid Fitz]

Hey look, more facts! Obama delays yet another provision of his super awesome healthcare law!!! I really detest that Obama keeps obstructing this law from "providing healthcare to millions of people."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/us/a-limit-on-consumer-costs-is-delayed-in-health-care-law.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

WASHINGTON — In another setback for President Obama’s health care initiative, the administration has delayed until 2015 a significant consumer protection in the law that limits how much people may have to spend on their own health care.

The limit on out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles and co-payments, was not supposed to exceed $6,350 for an individual and $12,700 for a family. But under a little-noticed ruling, federal officials have granted a one-year grace period to some insurers, allowing them to set higher limits, or no limit at all on some costs, in 2014.

The grace period has been outlined on the Labor Department’s Web site since February, but was obscured in a maze of legal and bureaucratic language that went largely unnoticed. When asked in recent days about the language — which appeared as an answer to one of 137 “frequently asked questions about Affordable Care Act implementation” — department officials confirmed the policy.

I bet all those projects in Louisiana and Nebraska are right on track though!!!!

[ednksu]

jfc this is the biggest collection of one track mindset mouth breathers on the internet outside the hannity forum. Beems is constantly clownsuiting you people with actual facts about how this law works and you only combat him with insular thought talking points which leave out 90% of the facts to construct a world where Obamacare can only fail.  People are missing everything from costs, to availability, to access in this 'discussion' because they are only reciting talking points instead of actually understanding how this set of laws work.  But why should any of you care about what is actually going to happen when you have talking points to consume like a fat person at Mcdonalds.  I'll await the next set of posts which in one breath demand things original Obamacare wanted which were decried as socialism and in another bitch about any attempt to fix this pos healthcare system with bullshit talking points about the 'free market'. y

Pretty sure you're joking, right? Anyway, there have been plenty of facts posted in this thread about (1) how premiums have increased dramatically in certain states due to Obamacare, and (2) how the Obama Administration has unilaterally decided to not enforce and/or delay enforcement of certain provisions of the law.

See the issue is that you take a fragment of truth and then smear a huge mound of bullshit rhetoric on top of it to warp it into a talking point.  That is no longer a factual statement. 

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Plant a fact seed and some day you'll have a talking point tree.

[kim carnes]

jfc this is the biggest collection of one track mindset mouth breathers on the internet outside the hannity forum. Beems is constantly clownsuiting you people with actual facts about how this law works and you only combat him with insular thought talking points which leave out 90% of the facts to construct a world where Obamacare can only fail.  People are missing everything from costs, to availability, to access in this 'discussion' because they are only reciting talking points instead of actually understanding how this set of laws work.  But why should any of you care about what is actually going to happen when you have talking points to consume like a fat person at Mcdonalds.  I'll await the next set of posts which in one breath demand things original Obamacare wanted which were decried as socialism and in another bitch about any attempt to fix this pos healthcare system with bullshit talking points about the 'free market'. y

Pretty sure you're joking, right? Anyway, there have been plenty of facts posted in this thread about (1) how premiums have increased dramatically in certain states due to Obamacare, and (2) how the Obama Administration has unilaterally decided to not enforce and/or delay enforcement of certain provisions of the law.

See the issue is that you take a fragment of truth and then smear a huge mound of bullshit rhetoric on top of it to warp it into a talking point.  That is no longer a factual statement.

you're going to love it here in the The Toolbox

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Part Time Nation, from NBC (): http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/13/20010062-businesses-claim-obamacare-has-forced-them-to-cut-employee-hours?lite

Employers around the country, from fast-food franchises to colleges, have told NBC News that they will be cutting workers’ hours below 30 a week because they can’t afford to offer the health insurance mandated by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

“To tell somebody that you’ve got to decrease their hours because of a law passed in Washington is very frustrating to me,” said Loren Goodridge, who owns 21 Subway franchises, including a restaurant in Kennebunk. “I know the impact I’m having on some of my employees.”

Goodridge said he’s cutting the hours of 50 workers to no more than 29 a week so he won’t trigger the provision in the new health care law that requires employers to offer coverage to employees who work 30 hours or more per week. The provision takes effect in 16 months.

Luke Perfect, who has worked at Goodridge’s Kennebunk Subway for more than a decade, said it was “horrible” to learn he was among the employees whose hours would be limited, and that it would be a financial hardship. “I’m barely scraping by with overtime,” he said.

The White House dismisses such examples as "anecdotal." Jason Furman, chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisors, said, “We are seeing no systematic evidence that the Affordable Care Act is having an adverse impact on job growth or the number of hours employees are working. … Since the ACA became law, nearly 90 percent of the gain in employment has been in full-time positions.”

But the president of an influential union that [still] supports Obamacare said the White House is wrong. "It IS happening," insisted Joseph Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which has 1.2 million members.  "Wait a year. You'll see tremendous impact as workers have their hours reduced and their incomes reduced. The facts are already starting to show up. Their statistics, I think, are a little behind the time."

In a letter to Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill, Hansen joined other labor chieftains in warning that the ACA as presently written could “destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week that is the backbone of the middle class.”

NBC News spoke with almost 20 small businesses and other entities from Maine to California, and almost all said that because of the new law they’d be cutting back hours for some employees – an unintended consequence of the new law.

...

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Time for more exceptions.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I would certainly hope we don't start making exceptions for awful employers like fast food businesses.

[michigancat]

if the government just paid for everyone's basic health care this wouldn't be a problem. sheesh

[Rage Against the McKee]

if the government just paid for everyone's basic health care this wouldn't be a problem. sheesh

Subway could also just pay for this by charging $5.25 for a foot long sub instead of $5. Those workers should just find a different job, though. Maybe unionize or something.

[kim carnes]

if the government just paid for everyone's basic health care this wouldn't be a problem. sheesh

Subway could also just pay for this by charging $5.25 for a foot long sub instead of $5. Those workers should just find a different job, though. Maybe unionize or something.

That sounds like bullshit

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

if the government just paid for everyone's basic health care this wouldn't be a problem. sheesh

Would be better if the government just made it illegal to get sick

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sebelius-pass-immigration-bill-boost-obamacare-enrollment

Well, too bad nobody saw that coming.

"Hey guys! I have this awesome idea. Let's just promise people that illegal immigrants won't be eligible for Obamacare. Then after we pass it, we'll pass immigration reform making all the formerly illegal immigrants eligible for our brand new entitlement. It's like 15 million new guaranteed votes!

Wait, can we afford to subsidize 15 million new entrants to the health insurance roles?

Who the eff invited this guy? Who gives a crap if we can afford it? We can win, stupid."

[chum1]

I'm about to learn a whole bunch about this stuff and make my Republican employer gobs of money.

you should start a chum1 does obamacare thread. it would be like felix rex goes to cairo but with you and obamacare.

Just found out that one of the partners in a New York HIX account of ours is Ivanka Trump's husband.  Saw a memo from him today, but didn't know who it was until someone told me.

 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Never fear, unions, you'll ultimately be protected from Obamacare, too. We'll just shell out some more tax dollars to subsidize any group who supports us politically!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/30/white-house-considers-awarding-obamacare-subsidies-intended-for-the-uninsured-to-labor-unions/

A few weeks ago, I discussed the fact that labor unions have been increasingly vocal about their objections to certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare will “shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class,” wrote three labor leaders in July. Now, according to a report from InsideHealthPolicy, the Obama administration is considering offering insurance subsidies—intended for the uninsured—to labor union members who already have employer-sponsored coverage.

See, it's just a matter of changing the regulations, which means this President can do whatever the eff he wants without asking Congress to actually change, you know, the law they passed.

Remember back in high school civics classes when we were taught that "Congress passes the laws, the Executive Enforces the laws, and Judicial interprets them"? 

[michigancat]

Never fear, unions, you'll ultimately be protected from Obamacare, too. We'll just shell out some more tax dollars to subsidize any group who supports us politically!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/30/white-house-considers-awarding-obamacare-subsidies-intended-for-the-uninsured-to-labor-unions/

A few weeks ago, I discussed the fact that labor unions have been increasingly vocal about their objections to certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare will “shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class,” wrote three labor leaders in July. Now, according to a report from InsideHealthPolicy, the Obama administration is considering offering insurance subsidies—intended for the uninsured—to labor union members who already have employer-sponsored coverage.

See, it's just a matter of changing the regulations, which means this President can do whatever the eff he wants without asking Congress to actually change, you know, the law they passed.

Remember back in high school civics classes when we were taught that "Congress passes the laws, the Executive Enforces the laws, and Judicial interprets them"? 

I agree that this is extremely unfair and single payer would be much better.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Never fear, unions, you'll ultimately be protected from Obamacare, too. We'll just shell out some more tax dollars to subsidize any group who supports us politically!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/30/white-house-considers-awarding-obamacare-subsidies-intended-for-the-uninsured-to-labor-unions/

A few weeks ago, I discussed the fact that labor unions have been increasingly vocal about their objections to certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare will “shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class,” wrote three labor leaders in July. Now, according to a report from InsideHealthPolicy, the Obama administration is considering offering insurance subsidies—intended for the uninsured—to labor union members who already have employer-sponsored coverage.

See, it's just a matter of changing the regulations, which means this President can do whatever the eff he wants without asking Congress to actually change, you know, the law they passed.

Remember back in high school civics classes when we were taught that "Congress passes the laws, the Executive Enforces the laws, and Judicial interprets them"? 

I agree that this is extremely unfair and single payer would be much better.

How is a single payer system in any way fair?

[michigancat]

Never fear, unions, you'll ultimately be protected from Obamacare, too. We'll just shell out some more tax dollars to subsidize any group who supports us politically!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/30/white-house-considers-awarding-obamacare-subsidies-intended-for-the-uninsured-to-labor-unions/

A few weeks ago, I discussed the fact that labor unions have been increasingly vocal about their objections to certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare will “shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class,” wrote three labor leaders in July. Now, according to a report from InsideHealthPolicy, the Obama administration is considering offering insurance subsidies—intended for the uninsured—to labor union members who already have employer-sponsored coverage.

See, it's just a matter of changing the regulations, which means this President can do whatever the eff he wants without asking Congress to actually change, you know, the law they passed.

Remember back in high school civics classes when we were taught that "Congress passes the laws, the Executive Enforces the laws, and Judicial interprets them"? 

I agree that this is extremely unfair and single payer would be much better.

How is a single payer system in any way fair?

well for starters being in a union wouldn't give you preferential treatment within the system

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Never fear, unions, you'll ultimately be protected from Obamacare, too. We'll just shell out some more tax dollars to subsidize any group who supports us politically!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/30/white-house-considers-awarding-obamacare-subsidies-intended-for-the-uninsured-to-labor-unions/

A few weeks ago, I discussed the fact that labor unions have been increasingly vocal about their objections to certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare will “shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class,” wrote three labor leaders in July. Now, according to a report from InsideHealthPolicy, the Obama administration is considering offering insurance subsidies—intended for the uninsured—to labor union members who already have employer-sponsored coverage.

See, it's just a matter of changing the regulations, which means this President can do whatever the eff he wants without asking Congress to actually change, you know, the law they passed.

Remember back in high school civics classes when we were taught that "Congress passes the laws, the Executive Enforces the laws, and Judicial interprets them"? 

I agree that this is extremely unfair and single payer would be much better.

How is a single payer system in any way fair?

well for starters being in a union wouldn't give you preferential treatment within the system

That's a choice of the current administration as a favor for monetary campaign support. It wasn't part the law.

[michigancat]

well obamacare sucks either way

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

well obamacare sucks either way

Yeah.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Another casualty of the Affordable Care Act.

A current Trader Joe's worker described the coverage she'll likely lose as "one of the best parts about the job." (The employee requested anonymity since she isn't authorized to speak to the media.) She said she pays only $35 per paycheck, or $70 per month, for a plan that generally covers 80 percent of her medical costs, carries a reasonable $500 deductible and includes prescription drug coverage.

"There are several folks I work with who are there for the insurance as much as anything, mostly folks with young families," she said. "I can say that when I opened and read the letter yesterday my reaction was pure panic, followed quickly by anger."

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Another casualty of the Affordable Care Act.

A current Trader Joe's worker described the coverage she'll likely lose as "one of the best parts about the job." (The employee requested anonymity since she isn't authorized to speak to the media.) She said she pays only $35 per paycheck, or $70 per month, for a plan that generally covers 80 percent of her medical costs, carries a reasonable $500 deductible and includes prescription drug coverage.

"There are several folks I work with who are there for the insurance as much as anything, mostly folks with young families," she said. "I can say that when I opened and read the letter yesterday my reaction was pure panic, followed quickly by anger."

These interviews are incomplete without asking who they voted for.