The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[JuanGuzman]

Karma's a B word ain't it?

Note the bolded above and figure out what you did wrong. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. (like you did with jboyst)

 

Thanks, I feel like I can relax now. I'm confident that i am winning the debate when you guys spend your time reviewing my posts for common grammar typos.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Once again you're only telling one half of the story, the side that suits you. On congress suggested changes, the other half was the companion piece would have prevented the individual mandate from functioning. The individual mandate is the guts of the health insurance, its why health reform worked in Massachusetts under governor Romney, and delaying it for a year would of doomed ACA. why do you think the Repubs suggested it???

Because it's an absolute perversion of the role of the federal government for it to force individuals to give their money to private companies.

 

You guy's always want to have it both ways, it sickens me... you cry like babies when Obamacare cancels insurance policies that don't meet its requirements (Fine I too think its scary that some people who had bare minimum insurance might not have any insurance due to obamacare) But you complain Oh No Obama's not following the rules game when he allows people more time to get an insurance plan that meets ACA standards.

No, we don't "want it both ways". We don't cry when it cancels insurance policies, that's an absolutely false characterization. We point out that that's exactly what we said it would do, which is one of the reasons we opposed the law in the first place. And it's something the President vehemently denied would happen. We then complain that the Persident isn't following the law, because it's the law. So now tte President has done two things: destroyed healthcare delivery, and violated the Constitution. What we want is for the President to stop destroying heathcare, and to stop violating the Constitution. So with that in mind, are you saying that there is no way he can avoid destroying heathcare without violating the Constitution, or are you saying there is no way he can avoid violating the Constitution without destroying heathcare? This is the dillema you've created with your own assertions.

 

There is no logic to it, It's just blinding ideology. Lets stop pretending where having a debate on the merits of ObamaCare

Given that you're they guy who just created the above false dillema, I'm not sure that you're any sort of authority figure on logic. Infact, given the absurdity of the dillema you're created, I can only arrive at the notion that you've embraced an ideology yourself, and are weilding it in lieu of logic.

 

Most of the crew in PPP simply don't want it, so they'll latch onto any argument no matter how contrived, how convoluted and argue the point. Me myself I'm evidenced based and I note that ACA has real costs, it also has real benefits. The Benefits outweigh the costs so lets fire this baby up, and get Affordable care going in America.

And one of those acceptable costs is the final destruction of Constitutional government and the seperation of powers?

 

Also, you've now mentioned "affordable care". Provide non-ancedotal evidence of this affordable care.

 

Heard that several states are putting their prison population on Obamacare. Well, that explains the uptick in the insured.

Cruel and unusual punishment.

[3rdnlng]

 

Thanks, I feel like I can relax now. I'm confident that i am winning the debate when you guys spend your time reviewing my posts for common grammar typos.

 

No you ass, your condescending attitude towards others for the same thing is what caused me to point out your blunders. I don't review your posts for common grammar typos. I actually read your posts and your blunders stood out like a sore thumb.

 

Are you ready for a Rick Santorum to have the same usurped powers as Obama?

[DC Tom]

Once again you're only telling one half of the story, the side that suits you. On congress suggested changes, the other half was the companion piece would have prevented the individual mandate from functioning. The individual mandate is the guts of the health insurance, its why health reform worked in Massachusetts under governor Romney, and delaying it for a year would of doomed ACA. why do you think the Repubs suggested it???

 

You guy's always want to have it both ways, it sickens me... you cry like babies when Obamacare cancels insurance policies that don't meet its requirements (Fine I too think its scary that some people who had bare minimum insurance might not have any insurance due to obamacare) But you complain Oh No Obama's not following the rules game when he allows people more time to get an insurance plan that meets ACA standards.

 

There is no logic to it, It's just blinding ideology. Lets stop pretending where having a debate on the merits of ObamaCare

 

Most of the crew in PPP simply don't want it, so they'll latch onto any argument no matter how contrived, how convoluted and argue the point. Me myself I'm evidenced based and I note that ACA has real costs, it also has real benefits. The Benefits outweigh the costs so lets fire this baby up, and get Affordable care going in America.

 

So the individual mandate is the guts of the ACA, and delaying it a year would have doomed it...

 

...but now that it is delayed, the benefits still outweigh the costs?

 

Doomed, but beneficial? Who, exactly, is being blindly partisan here?

[IDBillzFan]

So the individual mandate is the guts of the ACA, and delaying it a year would have doomed it...

 

...but now that it is delayed, the benefits still outweigh the costs?

 

Doomed, but beneficial? Who, exactly, is being blindly partisan here?

 

He's not even being blindly partisan. He's genuinely stupid enough to believe what he is arguing makes sense.

[JuanGuzman]

The individual mandate still applies to most people, the whole point of it is to get people to sign up, if you made it so that the individual mandate didn't apply (Republican Proposal) than the healthy will take their sweet time signing up thereby screwing up the insurance risk pools . The individual mandates has been postponed for people who've had their insurance policies cancelled because of Obamacare standard requirements.

 

This is a transitory effects and its degree was unanticipated. Making concessions to those who lost insurance their makes perfect sense, but if you extend relief from the individual mandate to whole population than you don't get the widespread adoption of health insurance that you need for it to work.

[DC Tom]

The individual mandate still applies to most people, the whole point of it is to get people to sign up, if you made it so that the individual mandate didn't apply (Republican Proposal) than the healthy will take their sweet time signing up thereby screwing up the insurance risk pools . The individual mandates has been postponed for people who've had their insurance policies cancelled because of Obamacare standard requirements.

 

This is a transitory effects and its degree was unanticipated. Making concessions to those who lost insurance their makes perfect sense, but if you extend relief from the individual mandate to whole population than you don't get the widespread adoption of health insurance that you need for it to work.

 

Then it's not a mandate.

[TakeYouToTasker]

JuanGuzman:

 

I've noted that you've not responded to my posts.

[OCinBuffalo]

The director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said the obvious: losing your job and choosing to work less aren't the same thing. If you lose your job, you suffer immense personal and financial hardship. If, on the other hand, you choose to work less and spend more time with your family, "we don't sympathize. We say congratulations."

 

Worth the read in full: http://mobile.nytime...?_r=0&referrer=

If anybody ever needed an example of "moving the goalposts" here it is.

 

We've left all sorts of "promises" and outcomes behind....that were central to the promised value of the law. If Obamacare was any other product: the FTC would have locked Pelosi, Bauchus, Waxman, Obama and everybody else involved in this conspiracy up, fined them into oblivion, and thrown away the key. If Obamacare was a stock: they'd be sharing a cell with Bernie Madoff.

 

But now, we are supposed to forget all the projected "value" that isn't coming true(ahem, 31 million remain uninsured), and be happy with what we bought, because it lets some people get over on others?

 

Are...you...high?

Durr krugman may be mean to you republicans be he is no hack.

Krugman is a hack to the point that other academics have come out now and questioned his academic cred. There was a time when he intimidated, but, his own posts have been his undoing. It's only going to get worse now that the University of Chicago guys have said: enough is enough.

and people have the gall to wonder why the GOP doesn't trust the administration...

I consider MadCap to be a fairly good representation of "undecided" and "independent".

 

Hey Dims: how much do you want to bet that this is the general impression of most of the independents, undecideds, "not much interest in politics" demographic, which btw, almost always decide elections?

[JuanGuzman]

JuanGuzman:

 

I've noted that you've not responded to my posts.

 

Sorry you guys just toss so many balls in the air for me too shoot em all down, some get lost in fray.

 

here is my response:

 

First, in short I think the role of government is to deliver better outcomes for it citizens, in some instances that means ensuring free unfettered markets, in others it means providing goods and services like national defense, other times it means imposing rules and regulations to deliver a more efficient outcome. So I don't see it as a perversion of government.

 

Second, I don't buy your premise that republicans don't want it both ways..... I think tehy'll argue anything, with no regard for logic, as long as it erodes ACA. I actually think they willfully cause harm to America by putting their preference to see Obama fail over the interest of American citizens. Debt ceiling b.s. being a prime example.

 

Finally, I also don't believe that Obama exercising executive discretion is the final nail in the coffin for Constitutional government and the separation of powers.

 

Here are the stats on executive order:

So what if the President does executive orders! Did not prior presidents do the same thing? Yes and no! George Washington did 8, John Adams 1, Thomas Jefferson 4, James Madison 1, James Monroe 1, John Quincy Adams 3, and Andrew Jackson 12. The first seven presidents totaled 30 executive orders over forty-seven years. The most recent seven presidents Barack Obama 168, George W. Bush 291, William J. Clinton 364, George Bush 166, Ronald Reagan 381, Jimmy Carter 320, and Gerald R. Ford 169 totaled 1,859, over forty years — sixty-two times as many. Obviously something has radically changed.

http://www.yourhoust...8ca6a5b175.html

 

Since I answered you. How you answer me one question. Its a simple yes or no... here it goes will more total Americans have health insurance as a result of Obamacare?

Edited February 8, 2014 by JuanGuzman

[DC Tom]

Sorry you guys just toss so many balls in the air for me too shoot em all down, some get lost in fray.

 

here is my response:

 

First, in short I think the role of government is to deliver better outcomes for it citizens, in some instances that means ensuring free unfettered markets, in others it means providing goods and services like national defense, other times it means imposing rules and regulations to deliver a more efficient outcome. So I don't see it as a perversion of government.

 

Second, I don't buy your premise that republicans don't want it both ways..... I think tehy'll argue anything, with no regard for logic, as long as it erodes ACA. I actually think they willfully cause harm to America by putting their preference to see Obama fail over the interest of American citizens. Debt ceiling b.s. being a prime example.

 

Finally, I also don't believe that Obama exercising executive discretion is the final nail in the coffin for Constitutional government and the separation of powers.

 

Here are the stats on executive order:

http://www.yourhoust...8ca6a5b175.html

 

Since I answered you. How you answer me one question. Its a simple yes or no... here it goes will more total Americans have health insurance as a result of Obamacare?

 

All you've managed to do is demonstrate you're a total idiot. Do you even understand that the president is bound by the law?

[JuanGuzman]

I understand the the president is bound by law. but i also understand there is reason executive discretion, to allow for flexibility. I have no doubt Obama will faithfully execute provisions in Affordable Care Act.

[OCinBuffalo]

I understand the the president is bound by law. but i also understand there is reason executive discretion, to allow for flexibility. I have no doubt Obama will faithfully execute provisions in Affordable Care Act.

Interesting. Obama has already chosen not to do so, yet you still have faith that he will.

 

I suppose that's what this entire debate comes down to: faith vs. fact, empirical evidence, reason, and business experience.

 

How strange that the left finds itself on the faith side of things.

[birdog1960]

He's not even being blindly partisan. He's genuinely stupid enough to believe what he is arguing makes sense.

i thoroughly disagree with your assessment but would this not disqualify juan as a troll?

 

How strange that the left finds itself on the faith side of things.

not at all. there are many liberals of faith. that doesn't necessarily divorce us from reason. some would argue it links us more closely. Edited February 8, 2014 by birdog1960

[TakeYouToTasker]

I understand the the president is bound by law. but i also understand there is reason executive discretion, to allow for flexibility. I have no doubt Obama will faithfully execute provisions in Affordable Care Act.

Then it falls to you to explain why the president threatened to veto a law suspending the individual mandate, and then issued, by dictate, a suspension of the I divi dual mandate.

 

Speak to this.

[IDBillzFan]

i thoroughly disagree with your assessment but would this not disqualify juan as a troll?

 

Absolutely. Trolls are intentionally stupid. Juan's is more natural.

 

The individual mandate still applies to most people, the whole point of it is to get people to sign up, if you made it so that the individual mandate didn't apply (Republican Proposal) than the healthy will take their sweet time signing up thereby screwing up the insurance risk pools .

 

So the plan was to mandate participation, but make the penalty for failing to comply less than $8 a month, and only collectible if you are due an IRS refund.

 

Clearly this plan was devised by people with a wealth of private sector business experience.

[Doc]

I understand the the president is bound by law. but i also understand there is reason executive discretion, to allow for flexibility. I have no doubt Obama will faithfully execute provisions in Affordable Care Act.

Did you really just type that?

[meazza]

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304680904579367143880532248

[3rdnlng]

http://online.wsj.co...367143880532248

 

From your link:

 

"The Keynesian economists who dominate Mr. Obama's Washington are preoccupied by demand, and their explanation for persistently high post-recession unemployment is weak demand for goods and thus demand for labor. Mr. Mulligan, by contrast, studies the supply of labor and attributes the state of the economy in large part to the expansion of the entitlement and welfare state, such as the surge in food stamps, unemployment benefits, Medicaid and other safety-net programs. As these benefits were enriched and extended to more people by the stimulus, he argues in his 2012 book "The Redistribution Recession," they were responsible for about half the drop in work hours since 2007, and possibly more."

[meazza]

From your link:

 

"The Keynesian economists who dominate Mr. Obama's Washington are preoccupied by demand, and their explanation for persistently high post-recession unemployment is weak demand for goods and thus demand for labor. Mr. Mulligan, by contrast, studies the supply of labor and attributes the state of the economy in large part to the expansion of the entitlement and welfare state, such as the surge in food stamps, unemployment benefits, Medicaid and other safety-net programs. As these benefits were enriched and extended to more people by the stimulus, he argues in his 2012 book "The Redistribution Recession," they were responsible for about half the drop in work hours since 2007, and possibly more."

 

To be honest I can't possibly imagine wanting to remain poor/low income to receive benefits but that's just me.

[DC Tom]

To be honest I can't possibly imagine wanting to remain poor/low income to receive benefits but that's just me.

 

You forget that over the past forty years we've managed to equate "victim" and "hero" in this country. We're at the point where it's heroic to receive benefits because you're a victim of the rich.

[OCinBuffalo]

not at all. there are many liberals of faith. that doesn't necessarily divorce us from reason. some would argue it links us more closely.

So the very next time some crusading leftist atheist shows up here spewing Richard Dawkins talking points, I assume you will be telling them to STFU? They are constantly telling us that faith is for the ignorant, delusional,(insert name calling here). The only argument left for the Obamacare supporter = I have faith that it will work/be implemented properly by Obama. Faith.

To be honest I can't possibly imagine wanting to remain poor/low income to receive benefits but that's just me.

Live in a city. You won't have to imagine it. It will be all around you. I suppose the same is true in the suburbs/country, it's just concentrated, thus easier to see, in a city. There's all sorts of reasons(I would call 80% of them excuses), but, the commonality is an awful culture/set of values. Just awful.

 

F self-esteem. Self-respect is the problem. Consider: "Self-control is the chief element in self-respect, and self-respect is the chief element in courage."

 

These people you can't imagine lack the courage to think they can be better, therefore no balls to take the risk and try,

because they lack the self-respect that comes from accomplishment, of the things which would make them better,

because they lack the self-control to do all the small things consistently, that lead to that acomplishment.

They choose other things instead, and they make these bad choices every day.

 

You can say: Ok, Tony Robbins. I will say: the quote above comes from Thucydides, and is over 2,400 years old. We've known this, as a race, for that long. We both know the difference between making 10 good choices in a row, and 10 bad ones.

 

Self respect is the middle. It forms the chain, and is the glue that holds it all together. Once you lose your self-respect, everything bad is probable.

 

EDIT: And the one thing liberals/socialists/Communists/fascists will never understand? The state cannot entitle self-respect. Nor can they hand it out, nor can they steal it from someone and give it to another. You can't get it by glorifying the state. Self respect does not come from the collective, or the state, or from a celebrity/cult of personality leader. Genuine self-respect can only come from the individual.

Edited February 8, 2014 by OCinBuffalo

[Nanker]

To be honest I can't possibly imagine wanting to remain poor/low income to receive benefits but that's just me.

That is you, but not "just" you. There are plenty of people who are expert at gaming the system and they have no qualms about it. They live that way. Furthermore, their masters are incessantly finding new ways to stick the government teat farther down their throats so they can be more deeply anesthetized by, and become oblivious to the opiate they're being fed on a daily basis. Leftist politicians nurture a slave culture. They're well practiced political crack pushers with seductive sales techniques. The low information American voter doesn't stand a chance. Here... have a "cigarette". It'll make you feel good, and the first one is free."

[B-Man]

There will come a time when the vast American public gets tired of lies.

 

 

Number of Obamacare sign-ups is greatly inflated

by Byron York

 

 

Democrats from President Obama on down have been touting Obamacare's sign-up numbers. Even after the system's disastrous rollout, they like to point out, roughly three million people have signed up for private insurance, while 6.3 million have signed up for Medicaid.

 

"Already, because of the Affordable Care Act, more than nine million Americans have signed up for private health insurance or Medicaid coverage," Obama said in the State of the Union speech. "Nine million."

 

{snip}

 

First, Medicaid. This week, the health consulting firm Avalere found that only 1 to 2 million of the 6.3 million who signed up for Medicaid were new enrollees brought into the program by Obamacare. The rest were people who were eligible and would have signed up for Medicaid irrespective of Obamacare, in addition to people who were already on Medicaid but were renewing their status. (The researchers reached their conclusion by comparing the Obamacare sign-ups with a recent period before the new health law went into effect.)

 

 

The numbers are important not only for policy, but for politics. In recent months, as the failures of the Obamacare website left the administration reeling and its supporters disheartened, Democrats often pointed to the number of Medicaid sign-ups as an example — the only example — of a shining success for Obamacare. Now that success looks a lot less shiny.

 

"It's a surprise because of all the outreach and the fact that Medicaid is free — there is no premium paid by individuals," said health care analyst Bob Laszewski. "This really is perplexing — they can't give it away!"

 

Then there are the roughly three million people said to have signed up for private insurance. In mid-January, the Wall Street Journal reported that a relatively small percentage of the new sign-ups were previously uninsured Americans gaining coverage through Obamacare. The rest were people who were covered and lost that coverage in the market disruptions largely caused by Obamacare.

 

A McKinsey and Co. survey cited by the Journal found that just 11 percent of private insurance signups were people who previously had no coverage. Other surveys found that about one-quarter of new sign-ups were previously uninsured.

 

 

 

 

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2543629

[JuanGuzman]

Since I answered you. How you answer me one question. Its a simple yes or no... here it goes will more total Americans have health insurance as a result of Obamacare?

 

I see no one has responded to my question?

[3rdnlng]

I see no one has responded to my question?

 

NO. Besides that the quality will be less and it will be more expensive. In addition our taxes will go up.

[keepthefaith]

I see no one has responded to my question?

 

Covering more people by giving it away to many, subsidizing some, forcing some who didn't have it to buy it plus charging most who already had coverage a lot more in taxes and increased premiums is dumb. Let's also throw in mandating levels of coverage some people don't want and forcing employers to provide and make coverage choices for their employees is further dumb. Having your President tell all people they will save money and can keep their plan and doctor is dumber.

 

Proof of this is the significantly increased premiums, lost jobs and wages and the unfolding reality that the number of paid uninsured is not going down dramatically.

[Keukasmallies]

I see no one has responded to my question?

 

Not sure how many (more or fewer) Americans will have health care coverage. It's imminently possible POTUS will delay implementation of one or more mandates if things look tentative, so to project any number is merely speculation. I do believe that many of us who were satisfied with our health care, and the cost thereof, will be paying higher premiums for fewer services. For example, my premiums have increased in each of the past three years. Do you think I'll get some sort of rebate in the future?

 

And, of course, my co-payments have increased as well. Not to worry about that, however, since specialists will be increasingly more difficult to schedule.

 

Thanks Barack, I owe you one....

 

Spare me your liberal response about supporting "those less fortunate and underserved" as my time in the military as well as a thirty-five year career in public education put paid to a lot of that from my address.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Keukasmallies

[JuanGuzman]

NO. Besides that the quality will be less and it will be more expensive. In addition, taxes on the wealthiest Americans, will go up.

 

I graded you, red = wrong, Bold is my text, and Green = right. You got the first three wrong - the first one is obviously wrong more people will be insured every credible source says so. The other two are debatable but quality will go up (minimum standards duh!) and health costs will slow down not speed up (its already happened http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/healthcostreport_final_noembargo_v2.pdf. I'll give you partial credit for the last one..

 

Spare me your liberal response about supporting "those less fortunate and underserved" as my time in the military as well as a thirty-five year career in public education put paid to a lot of that from my address.

 

out of curiosity are you eligible for VA Care?

 

Also guys feel free to point out where/when it was that ObamaCare caused forced people into involuntary part-time work:

 

[Keukasmallies]

out of curiosity are you eligible for VA Care?

 

I am eligible, however, I have fewer needs than the vast majority of those who served more recently than my service, so I don't claim them out of respect.

[JuanGuzman]

I am eligible, however, I have fewer needs than the vast majority of those who served more recently than my service, so I don't claim them out of respect.

 

thanks for the info. I'm always interested to hear about peoples experience with the VA care. It used to be terrible, sounds like it's now some of the best health care you can get in the U.S. although I understand that influx of vets coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq has posed some significant challenges.

[B-Man]

More doctors and hospitals excluded from Obamacare plans :Health insurance everywhere, but not a doctor to see

 

We already have covered how there will be few doctors willing to see the millions more Medicaid patients — in many cases people who previously had private insurance.

 

We’ve also covered how insurance companies have no choice but to hike deductibles and narrow in-network provider networks in order to keep premiums artificially low. It’s all caused by Obamacare’s one-size fits all philosophy, loading up so-called acceptable plans with so many things most people don’t want or need that it raises the cost of insurance to unsustainable levels.

 

The reimbursement rates are so low for hospitals that even major research hospitals like Stonybrook Medical Center on Long Island are refusing to participate in any of the state health exchange plans unless reimbursement rates are renegotiated.

 

The latest, from CBS News, in how in Washington State the major children’s hospital in Seattle is excluded from all but two of the Obamacare plans

 

 

 

 

 

This is just the start. The first response inevitably will be a system of forced labor where doctors and other providers will be compelled by force of law to offer services through government plans under threat of license revocation or other punitive measures. And then, when the system is so screwed up it is beyond repair, single payer.

 

Obamacare is just the gateway drug to single payer.

 

 

 

.

Edited February 10, 2014 by B-Man

[3rdnlng]

thanks for the info. I'm always interested to hear about peoples experience with the VA care. It used to be terrible, sounds like it's now some of the best health care you can get in the U.S. although I understand that influx of vets coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq has posed some significant challenges.

 

The VA has improved over the years but it was never considered top notch. It is now considered pretty good in comparison to what Obamacare plans offer. The question is: has VA care improved so much or have the rest of the plans deteroriated that much? Va wins the gold by default?

[GG]

I see no one has responded to my question?

 

Wrong question to ask. It's in the same vein of "Who will turn down a free lunch?"

[DC Tom]

This is just the start. The first response inevitably will be a system of forced labor where doctors and other providers will be compelled by force of law to offer services through government plans under threat of license revocation or other punitive measures.

 

No kidding. You can't control costs and increase demand without controlling the distribution of supply. That collossal !@#$-up was pre-ordained.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

No kidding. You can't control costs and increase demand without controlling the distribution of supply. That collossal !@#$-up was pre-ordained.

ACO's are a clear, intentional, step in that direction.

[DC Tom]

So the very next time some crusading leftist atheist shows up here spewing Richard Dawkins talking points, I assume you will be telling them to STFU? They are constantly telling us that faith is for the ignorant, delusional,(insert name calling here). The only argument left for the Obamacare supporter = I have faith that it will work/be implemented properly by Obama. Faith.

 

Live in a city. You won't have to imagine it. It will be all around you. I suppose the same is true in the suburbs/country, it's just concentrated, thus easier to see, in a city. There's all sorts of reasons(I would call 80% of them excuses), but, the commonality is an awful culture/set of values. Just awful.

 

F self-esteem. Self-respect is the problem. Consider: "Self-control is the chief element in self-respect, and self-respect is the chief element in courage."

 

These people you can't imagine lack the courage to think they can be better, therefore no balls to take the risk and try,

because they lack the self-respect that comes from accomplishment, of the things which would make them better,

because they lack the self-control to do all the small things consistently, that lead to that acomplishment.

They choose other things instead, and they make these bad choices every day.

 

You can say: Ok, Tony Robbins. I will say: the quote above comes from Thucydides, and is over 2,400 years old. We've known this, as a race, for that long. We both know the difference between making 10 good choices in a row, and 10 bad ones.

 

Self respect is the middle. It forms the chain, and is the glue that holds it all together. Once you lose your self-respect, everything bad is probable.

 

EDIT: And the one thing liberals/socialists/Communists/fascists will never understand? The state cannot entitle self-respect. Nor can they hand it out, nor can they steal it from someone and give it to another. You can't get it by glorifying the state. Self respect does not come from the collective, or the state, or from a celebrity/cult of personality leader. Genuine self-respect can only come from the individual.

 

This needs to be called out, only as the first time in history both Tony Robbins and Thucydides has been referenced in the same sentence.

[IDBillzFan]

Now it's just getting embarrassing for the WH.

 

Obama Issues Another Delay...for Mid-sized Company Mandate Through 2016.

 

Someone needs to just abort this abortion and start over.

 

But we can't. It's the law. Or something like that.

[meazza]

Now it's just getting embarrassing for the WH.

 

Obama Issues Another Delay...for Mid-sized Company Mandate Through 2016.

 

Someone needs to just abort this abortion and start over.

 

But we can't. It's the law. Or something like that.

 

Is that even legal to delay the implementation of a law until you're out of office?

[B-Man]

PROCESS MATTERS !

 

If Romney had behaved like this, he’d have been (rightly) accused of executive tyranny. The media line would have been “the president is trying to unilaterally repeal the law of the land."

 

 

White House delays health insurance mandate for medium-sized employers until 2016

 

The Obama administration announced Monday it would give medium-sized employers an extra year, until 2016, before they must offer health insurance to their full-time workers.

 

Firms with at least 100 employees will have to start offering this coverage in 2015.

 

By offering an unexpected grace period to businesses with between 50 and 99 employees, administration officials are hoping to defuse another potential controversy involving the 2010 health-care law, which has become central to Republicans’ campaign to make political gains in this year’s midterm election.

 

Even the nation’s largest employers got a significant concession: They can avoid a fine by offering coverage to 70 percent of their full-time employees in 2015 and 95 percent starting in 2016. Under an earlier proposal, employers with at least 50 employees would have been required to offer insurance, beginning 2015, to 95 percent of those who work 30 hours or more a week, along with their dependents.

 

 

more at link:

 

http://www.washingto...ef5fb_story.htm

 

 

 

 

 

White House Delays Employer Mandate Again