Obamacare

[Boatrocker]

. . . Problem for your little defense is that this is NOT a "timing adjustment", it is a unilateral change in the REGULATIONS set forth in the law.

No, it is not. Nor can you show it to be.

[neoplacebo]

See? Confusion and stupidity are your constant companion....I didn't admit the GOP was right about anything. I just point out how rabidly you cheered for them doing the same thing Obama is now doing, and how you now have a 180 degree difference on the matter. It just proves you get your ideas fed to you by others.

Wrong! I cheered the GOP attempting to use the LEGISLATIVE process. Something that obama has NOT done. See you are still confused.

You're incredibly dense....like granite. You cheered like crazy for the GOP to shut down the government unless they got their way, unless the delays or changes were made to suit them. Threatening to shut down the government unless you get your way isn't using the legislative process....."standing up for the American people" as you think the GOP was doing during that insanity isn't using the legislative process, being against and obstructing virtually everything isn't using the legislative process, partially funding the government by single bills to fund items of GOP choice is incredibly stupid, unworkable, and isn't using the legislative process. And now that part of the program is being delayed (something you cheered like crazy for not long ago) you now crow and squawk about how it's "illegal" or "unconstitutional." Ignorance gone to seed.

[Roland Deschain]

Wrong! I cheered the GOP attempting to use the LEGISLATIVE process. Something that obama has NOT done. See you are still confused.
You're incredibly dense....like granite. You cheered like crazy for the GOP to shut down the government unless they got their way, unless the delays or changes were made to suit them. Threatening to shut down the government unless you get your way isn't using the legislative process....."standing up for the American people" as you think the GOP was doing during that insanity isn't using the legislative process, being against and obstructing virtually everything isn't using the legislative process, partially funding the government by single bills to fund items of GOP choice is incredibly stupid, unworkable, and isn't using the legislative process. And now that part of the program is being delayed (something you cheered like crazy for not long ago) you now crow and squawk about how it's "illegal" or "unconstitutional." Ignorance gone to seed.

Oh, I'm sorry. Please explain to the class how THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES passing a bill and sending it to the Senate is NOT the legislative process. Your precious Harry Reid then stopped that process with his and obama's blatant refusal to even negotiate. You have a serious problem with a disregard of the facts...that or you really are a special stupid.

[Roland Deschain]

. . . Problem for your little defense is that this is NOT a "timing adjustment", it is a unilateral change in the REGULATIONS set forth in the law.

No, it is not. Nor can you show it to be.

The law set forth a set of minimum standards for policies purchased before ACA took effect and stated that the policy could not change (the grandfather clause). Those standards have now been waived to allow changes to stand for policies purchased before ACA took effect and even those after. That is not a simple "timing" change. Try again ass hat

[Boatrocker]

. . . Problem for your little defense is that this is NOT a "timing adjustment", it is a unilateral change in the REGULATIONS set forth in the law.

No, it is not. Nor can you show it to be.

The law set forth a set of minimum standards for policies purchased before ACA took effect and stated that the policy could not change (the grandfather clause). Those standards have now been waived to allow changes to stand for policies purchased before ACA took effect and even those after. That is not a simple "timing" change. Try again ass hat

Sure it is, nor can you show different. Fuckstick.

[Roland Deschain]

. . . Problem for your little defense is that this is NOT a "timing adjustment", it is a unilateral change in the REGULATIONS set forth in the law.

No, it is not. Nor can you show it to be.

The law set forth a set of minimum standards for policies purchased before ACA took effect and stated that the policy could not change (the grandfather clause). Those standards have now been waived to allow changes to stand for policies purchased before ACA took effect and even those after. That is not a simple "timing" change. Try again ass hat

Sure it is, nor can you show different. Fuckstick.

Just did numb nuts.....not my fault your head is so far up your ass coupled with your in depth stupidity to understand it.

[Boatrocker]

. . . Problem for your little defense is that this is NOT a "timing adjustment", it is a unilateral change in the REGULATIONS set forth in the law.

No, it is not. Nor can you show it to be.

The law set forth a set of minimum standards for policies purchased before ACA took effect and stated that the policy could not change (the grandfather clause). Those standards have now been waived to allow changes to stand for policies purchased before ACA took effect and even those after. That is not a simple "timing" change. Try again ass hat

Sure it is, nor can you show different. Fuckstick.

Just did numb nuts.....not my fault your head is so far up your ass coupled with your in depth stupidity to understand it.

You've shown nothing but your own stupidity, dunbfuck. You wishing don't make it so.

[Roland Deschain]

You've shown nothing but your own stupidity, dunbfuck. You wishing don't make it so.

LMAO people who live in glass houses should not throw rocks.....or at a minimum if they are going to call someone a dUMBfuck they should know how to spell it. You may go now.

[rstrong]

LMAO people who live in glass houses should not throw rocks.....or at a minimum if they are going to call someone a dUMBfuck they should know how to spell it. You may go now.

ATTENTION, ATTENTION
*troll clean up on aisle 3*
*troll clean up on aisle 3*

[Roland Deschain]

LMAO people who live in glass houses should not throw rocks.....or at a minimum if they are going to call someone a dUMBfuck they should know how to spell it. You may go now.

ATTENTION, ATTENTION
*troll clean up on aisle 3*
*troll clean up on aisle 3*

Thanks...'bout time somebody called out boatrocker for what he is. At least you will engage in a debate.

[Sometime Lefty]

And Mr Dim Wit fell for a parody that CBS was reporting that Obama ordered the Benghazi cover up! Stupid resides at that forum (all 10 of them).

http://dailycurrant.com/2013/11/11/cbs- ... -cover-up/

[O Really]

Sarah Palin has the answer, as she told Matt Lauer:

“The plan is to allow those things that have been proposed over many years to reform a health care system in America that certainly does need more help so that there’s more competition, there’s less tort-reform threat, there’s less trajectory of the cost increases. And those plans have been proposed over and over. And what thwarts those plans? It’s the far left.”

[O Really]

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation -- widely regarded as an honest, non-partisan broker when it comes to health care issues and analysis -- the declining increases in the cost of health care is 75 percent the result of economic factors and 25 percent a benefit of the cost cutting measures in the ACA that do, in fact, appear to be working. I'm sure it was the Death Panels that caused it.

[Another]

Flowers, Anyone?

Receptionist: Hello, Welcome to Obama Flowers. My name is Trina. How can I help you?

Customer: Hello, I received an email from Professional Flowers stating that my flower order has been canceled and I should go to your exchange to reorder it. I tried your website, but it seems like it is not working. So I am calling the 1-800 number.

Receptionist: Yes, I am sorry about the website. It should be fixed by the end of the year. But I can help you.

Customer: Thanks. I ordered a "Spring Bouquet" for our anniversary, and wanted it delivered to my wife-

Receptionist (interrupting): Sir, "Spring Bouquets" do not meet our minimum standards, I will be happy to provide you with red roses.

Customer: But I have always ordered "Spring Bouquets" — done it for years, my wife likes them.

Receptionist: Roses are better, sir; I am sure your wife will love them.

Customer: Well, how much are they?

Receptionist: It depends, sir. Do you want our Bronze, Silver, Gold, or Platinum package?

Customer: What's the difference?

Receptionist: 6, 12, 18, or 24 red roses.

Customer: The Silver package may be okay. How much is it?

Receptionist: It depends, sir. What is your monthly income?

Customer: What does that have to do with anything?

Receptionist: I need that to determine your government flower subsidy, then I can determine how much your out-of-pocket cost will be. But if your income is below our minimums for a subsidy, then I can refer you to our Flower Aid department.

Customer: Flower Aid?

Receptionist: Yes, flowers are a right. Everyone has a right to flowers. So, if you can't afford them, then the government will supply them free of charge.

Customer: Who said they were a right?

Receptionist: Congress passed it, the president signed it, and the Supreme Court found it constitutional.

Customer: Whoa… I don't remember seeing anything in the Constitution regarding flowers as a right.

Receptionist: It is not really a right in the Constitution, but Obama Flowers is constitutional because the Supreme Court ruled it a "tax." Taxes are constitutional. But we feel it is a right.

Customer: I don't believe this…

Receptionist: It's the law of the land, sir. Now, we anticipated most people would go for the Silver package, so what is your monthly income, sir?

Customer: Forget it, I think I will forgo the flowers this year.

Receptionist: In that case, sir, I will still need your monthly income.

Customer: Why?

Receptionist: To determine what your "non-participation" cost would be.

Customer: WHAT? You can't charge me for NOT buying flowers!

Receptionist: It's the law of the land, sir, approved by the Supreme Court. It's $9.50 or 1% of your monthly income—

Customer: WHAT?!

Receptionist: Sir, it is $9.50 or 1% of your monthly income, whichever is greater.

Customer: ARE YOU KIDDING ME??

Receptionist: Actually, sir, it is a good deal. Next year it will be 2%.

Customer: Look, I'm going to call my congressman to find out what's going on here. This is ridiculous! I'm not going to pay it!

Receptionist: Sorry to hear that, sir. That's why I had the NSA track this call and obtain the make and model of the cell phone you are using.

Customer: Why does the NSA need to know what kind of CELL PHONE I AM USING?

Receptionist: So they get your GPS coordinates, sir.

(Doorbell rings, followed immediately by a loud knock on the door)

Receptionist: That would be the IRS, sir. Thanks for calling Obama Flowers, have a nice day... and God bless America.

[Ombudsman]

Flowers, Anyone?

While that may make for good Facebook fodder and e-mail spam it isn't a very accurate analogy.

[Wneglia]

Medicaid Time Bomb

Get ready for a new separate Federal Medicaid payroll tax, probably equal to the 1.45% Medicare tax.

[Wneglia]

The New York Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.

"Michael D. Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute."

Funding of Cato

From Kaiser Commission

[Wneglia]

70% California Docs Say No

[O Really]

70% California Docs Say No

Well Doc, I think it's outrageous that Medicaid payments aren't competitive. On the other hand, listening to one from your article... “We need some recognition that we’re doing a service to the community. But we can’t do it for free. And we can’t do it at a loss. No other business would do that,” he said? But how many other businesses would like to operate under the terms a medical practice does? Captive market, no actual competition, charge whatever you like, get paid most of it by a third party.

[Wneglia]

From Kaiser Commission

No, that's "From" the Moonie Times, which does not link or even name the study it's referring to in its cherry picking. I think this is the one it means:

The Role of Medicaid in State Economies and the ACA

Summary

...Studies have shown that historically Medicaid spending has positive economic effects for states. The influx of federal funds magnifies the impact of Medicaid spending in state economies. Medicaid funds directly support tens of thousands of health care providers throughout the country, including hospitals, community health centers, nursing facilities, group homes, and managed care plans. The funds indirectly support other businesses and affect jobs, household spending, and states and local tax collections.

…Over the 2013-2022 period, states could see an additional $800 billion in federal dollars to states to support the expansion and $8.2 billion in new state spending (without accounting for any spending offsets due to lower uncompensated care costs, reductions in other state spending or other broader economic effects)…

* The Medicaid expansion is projected to generate increased state economic activity such as increases in state output, Gross State Product (GSP) and state and local revenues. The magnitude of the impact
depends on the level of current and anticipated new Medicaid funding.

* The Medicaid expansion is expected to have a positive effect on jobs and earnings.

Honestly, Wneglia, I don't know what's worse - That you swallow rightwing interpretations of credible work, that you mis-attribute what you've swallowed, that you don't bother to look up the source material yourself or that you think we won't.

Otoh, if you're deliberately being a set-up man, thank you.

Actually the "Moonie" article was written in Nov. 2012 (not that you noticed) and referenced this Kaiser Study not the one you linked.