Magox

As some of you may know, there is a stiff penalty for any business that employs over 50 people that doesn't offer health insurance to it's employees. For many businesses, this is a "game-changer", they simply cannot afford to absorb these sort of costs. So many businesses are lessening the hours from their full-time employees to part-time, you hear this not just from an anecdotal level, but now you are beginning to see some evidence that supports this in some of the more recent job numbers. In the latest BLS report, Part-time employment rose this month by 441,000 as private average weekly hours fell 0.2 to 34.4 hours and average weekly earnings fell from $824.52 to $821.13 due to fewer hours worked. Then of course you had Obama economic supporter Mark Zandi admit as much now you have left-leaning Jared Bernstein do so as well. Jared Bernstein: Obamacare Will "Boost Number Of Jobs Higher Because Of More Part-Time Jobs"

It's not " a year study".

I'm not opposed to caring for the poor, as a matter of fact I endorse it, just that it needs to be done much more efficiently and effective than the status quo. As I mentioned earlier, whatever the case may be, it's clearly not working.

Whatever the case may be, the findings show based on the large sample size they conducted, that Medicaid hasn't helped people in an appreciable manner in some of the major metrics they use to determine the effectiveness of coverage. From my perspective, it IS worth noting, considering the major cost that is being spent at both the Federal and State level. It seems quite obvious to me at least that there needs to be major reform with Medicaid. If you are going to spend this sort of money, specially considering the burden it creates at the State budget level (In which they have to balance their budgets, which means it comes at the expense of jobs, services etc), then they should be worried with these findings. You don't want to throw good money after ineffective programs right? And now couple that with the monumental expansion of Medicaid that we will be undertaking because of the ACH. It certainly gives pause. Don't you think?

Interesting study that I read about today in the Daily Beast. Study: Giving People Government Health Insurance May Not Make them Any Healthier The findings are fascinating, if you have the time and have an interest in this, I'd read the rest of the article.

Probably

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/297493-white-house-gay-rights-provision-preferable-but-not-necessary-for-immigration-bill#ixzz2SAy6F7uz

I guess we're just not gonna agree.

I and I'm pretty sure the vast majority of NFL "experts" and GM's disagree with your assessment, which is that Fitz played at an "AVERAGE" starting NFL QB level over the past two years. I'm not talking about performance. I mentioned "pedigree", arm strength and mechanics. That has always been on full display for teams to see.

So you are saying that Fitz deserves to be paid an NFL starting QB's pay? Is that what you are telling us?

It's as if you didn't read hardly anything I said.

It's not harping, Kelly made a comment and I just simply pointed out the Fitz signing and then that's how the discussion ensued. Also, in regards to Kelly's comment that he would of cost more. I just don't buy that, it's not as if Fitz's lack of arm strength, pedigree and mechanics would have been a secret that they would of uncovered after wards, it was right there for everyone to see.

They did panic and to believe they didn't is absurd. See how I did that? But let me delve into this a little further. So he was paid at a level of "19th best QB in the league" and your basis of support is that his stats backs this assessment? What after 5-6 games? Even if you take his full year's stats, which is silly to judge by considering that the contract was offered less than halfway through the season, it was clear by just going by the eyeball test that he wasn't a starting caliber NFL QB. You see, my main criticism was the process and philosophy of how the contract came about. It would have been one thing if he had a pedigree of a blue chip prospect or anything remotely considered to that level of play coming out of college. He wasn't. To give a contract offer at the caliber of an Average starting NFL QB to someone with no pedigree, very limited arm strength, questionable mechanics and an extremely limited body of work to judge him by, was clearly a flawed decision on his part, which again goes back to the process and philosophy that I was just talking about. This is not a hindsight argument. The more appropriate and logical approach would have been to wait till after the season to evaluate the player before the contract would have been offered.

I completely disagree with the premise that "it just didn't work out". Even if I were to accept this argument, he made the wrong call, and at the end of the day that's what it is largely about, picking the "right" guys. My main problem with the signing was the evaluation process. I would like to believe that before you give a large financial commitment to a NFL quarterback, specially one that wasn't a blue chip prospect coming out of college, that you vet the candidate thoroughly. He had five or six good games, Bills fans and apparently Nix as well was feeling the euphoria of the mini winning streak we had, and he bit on that sentiment and offered a contract that he shouldn't have. For crying out loud, he should have at least waited till the end of the season to give a more complete evaluation before the commitment was made. And I reject the notion that if we would of waited till the end of the year that we would of lost him to another bidding team. It was a classic case of buying high. Not only did Nix make the purchase at a high, but it was at his absolute record high. So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Don't forget the Fitz contract re negotiation, that was a complete, utter debacle.

I say give them all an equal chance to win the job and let the chips fall where they may.

But, but Nawrocki is a racist.

Interesting piece in the WAPO that touched on many of the points I've recently brought up. Obama to liberal supporters, don't doom the immigration bill. This is basically what you were somewhat alluding to earlier B Man This is what I brought up the other day, Obama had three main goals that he wanted to achieve for his second agenda. Gun Control, "Grand Bargain" on the debt" and Immigration Reform. As of now, the Gun Control issue is not in play, because of it's defeat (even though I wouldn't be surprised if it was revisited), and in regards to a "Grand Bargain"; yeah good luck with that. So that leaves Immigration reform. I know that Obama loves the competition aspect of politics, so he likes the idea of winning the war of politics, I get that, but as I mentioned earlier, if there is one thing that he loves more so than the sport of politics, it's himself. And this is his best shot of having something meaningful done in his second term to have something positive towards his legacy.

So the way you help solve this possible risk is by addressing it through the amendment process. It's not as if the "Schumer-Rubio" proposal is a finished product. Just the way Rubio has always said, it is a "framework" or foundation for what a bill could look like.

One of the main criticisms of Geno going into the draft was his mental toughness. Considering that he was about to skip the second day of the draft in the Green Room, after he was seen sulking in disappointment, in which of course someone told him "You can't do that man, you better show up for day two" and now that he has fired his agent only reinforces some of the criticism that he received. Time will tell whether or not those criticisms were unfounded.

Well to be fair, another major difference was the production between the two.

I don't doubt for a second that there are many on the left who would rather keep this immigration bill unresolved so that they can use it as a "hammer" as you would say for 2014 and beyond. My contention was that I don't believe that Obama does, simply because he has a legacy at stake. Did you see all the columns written yesterday about Obama and how he has lost control etc.? This is his best shot at getting something meaningful passed for his second term. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. He did get lots of support from the LGBT donor class and they did play a pivotal role during the elections, specially amongst younger voters, will he come out with a full-throated support of this amendment or will he behind the scenes look to try to get this out of the bill in order to help get a bill passed. Also, to the point you brought up earlier regarding Rubio. Obama should pay attention to how Rubio works. See how this guy is earning the respect from people from both sides of the aisle? He is building a consensus, he is working hand in hand with Liberals and he is going to virtually all the conservative news/entertainment outlets which usually are opponents of immigration reform to pitch the plan and build support. He is making sure that this will be an open process and he is respecting opinions that differ from his. Without a doubt, Rubio is the most important person in this entire process. If he goes, the bill dies. The only shot it will ever happen is with Rubio's full support, energy and skill. I believe that he will get a lot of the credit as he should for making this happen, if it happens.

Now THIS a "poison pill" amendment: Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz2S3tvIKZ6 Everyone understands that in order for a bill to pass, that it will take as many conservatives as possible to vote for this bill. One of the major boosters of this bill coming from Conservative quarters is coming from the Evangelicals, and Leahy and other liberals know full well that if they add this amendment, the Evangelicals will bail and will absolutely derail whatever hopes there are to get a bill through.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/01/news/economy/adp-jobs-report/ Mind you, this is from Mark Zandi, a supporter of the president's economic policies.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/marco-rubio-immigration-bill-cant-pass-the-house-90789.html#ixzz2Rz5t9eMT