Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington have joined Maine and Utah in passing legislation opposing Real ID.
Similar resolutions are pending in Alaska, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, D.C., West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
These IDs may also violate the 10th amendment. I find it interesting that Republicans now are all gung-ho over IDs but opposed it a mere 7 years ago.
Quote: Knight .... I was reading your sig and thought how ironic. You have that as your sig and yet the man you supported refused to release tax records. He ended up picking i think 2 years to release when it was all said and done. Amongst him telling the people "trust me" but would not reveal his tax plan besides extending bush tax cuts and lowering the tax for the incredibly rich, raise military budget over what the pentagon requested with no reasoning.
He lost Mass. and Wis. The people of those home states didnt even trust him or his VP enough to vote for them.
Just food for thought
its obvious my sig has gone way over your head. Let me spell it out for you, "Transactions of their rulers are concealed from them" means:
The government refuses to tell the people what their tax money is being spent on....like say the Pentagon just claims "government secrets" and spends billions of dollars on top secret nonsense (most of it massive waste mind you) Or the govt refusing to disclose which banks received TARP money.....he wasn't talking about individuals.
As for Mitt Romney's tax records, for starters he was never President and he was never a ruler of the USA. Secondly, what exactly does his "personal tax records" have to do with his ability to do a job?
furthermore, Mitt Romney paid more in taxes in 1 year then any poster on this forum will pay in their entire lifetimes(most likely)......but that's not enough is it? because the "the rich aren't paying their fair share" when the reality is the top 10 percent pay the majority of taxes in this country.
The Rich pay their fair share...look if you pay 15% tax rate, and Romney pays 7% tax rate who do you think pays more in taxes? I'll tell you who.. Romney because he made millions and his 7% of his millions will be more money paid out then your 15%.
furthermore, 50%(or close to it) of the country don't even pay taxes anyways and get income tax returns...so why are you complaining about Romney when you know...he actually pays taxes and doesn't get a return!
this type of logic doesn't make any sense to me. What the point of Romney releasing more tax records....what you think he is some kind of tax cheat? Don't you think just "maybe" the IRS went over his back tax returns to make sure he didn't rip them off? I am sure they did...I mean after all they checked Obama's.....
Those who tried to charge Mitt Romney as some kid of tax criminal IE: a felon is just not right....agree with Mitt or not..the guy is a good man who worked hard for his money....begrudging a man just because he makes more money then you is just sad....
Romney is a good family man, with a clean record, and married to the same woman for 43 years with no scandals.....he is, from a character perspective, a perfect role model in what the ideal American should strive to be which highly motivated to carve out their own path, and to be successful in life through hard worked, educations, and dedication.
of course those are ideals the current youth in this country know nothing about...
Quote: There should be a government issued Photo ID for all americans. No ID, no vote. No ID, no work.
Another photo id? driver's license/state id's aren't enough?
besides, if you can't work without an id, just think of how many bums would lose it
A photo id of some sort, whether it be state issued or federal issued is fine by me.
I'm sorry but this sounds like a punch line to a joke about right-wingers contradicting themselves. Lets clarify. Most right wingers want mandatory federal id for voting.... for everyone except themselves. If they were required themselves to get that ID why can't you just hear the up roar about the govt over stepping itself, compromising our privacy, keeping tabs, BIG BROTHER?!?! It's a conspiracy! Micro chipping is next! The FEMA CAMPS, THE FEMA CAMPS!!!!!!
I am so lost...........help me out. I have to show my i.d. when I go to vote. My wife does also. And when we walk in to vote, the people call us by name........but they still insist on seeing an i.d.
What is the problem with that? I just don't see a problem......where am I wrong? "Poor" people can get i.d.'s. They really can. Trust me. They have them for medical needs, they have them for food stamps, they have them for welfare.............so why is it so hard to have an i.d. to vote? Why is this only an issue at voting time?
Quote: Someone I know got upset because they questioned his ability to vote when he showed his Arizona driver's license... in Ohio. Of course, it was the evil Republican that was questioning it. When I pointed out how big of an idiot he was being for getting mad about being questioned (he still got to vote) he was even more retarded...
Why would a resident of Ohio have an Arizona driver's license? (Unless he was a college student) You are legally required to change your driver's license if you move to another state. Most states require you to get a new license within 30-90 days of establishing new residency.
Yep, which was pointed out to him.. he's a moron..
Jeeps Chinese Plans – Two New SUV’s to be Made in China Industry News | Ash | November 7, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Jeep became a political over the past two weeks when former presidential candidate Mitt Romney declared in a series of television adverts that Jeep was moving all of its production to China. The Obama camp were quick to respond, as was Sergio Marchionne, the Fiat-Chrysler CEO who stated time and time again that Jeep was moving to China to satisfy Chinese demand for Jeeps.
Jeep was a Chinese buccaneer, it was the automobile equivalent of Commodore Matthew Perry that opened China to the automobile world. The brand was the first automobile manufacturer to set up shop in China in 1984 and was swiftly followed by Volkswagen with their Shanghai-VW partnership, but the first Santana was considered a high end car where as the Jeep was a much needed vehicle in a vast country littered with dirt roads and rare concrete paved roads. By 2012 it was a different story, the Volkswagen brand has all but smothered the Chinese market and Jeep survives on the fringes with imported vehicles after the first joint venture with Beijing Auto collapsed with the end of the Daimler-Chrysler partnership.
With the new Fiat-Chrysler partnership and also the new Guangzhou-Fiat partnership, Jeep is likely to be seeing Chinese production lines once again very soon. Although an official announcement has not yet been made by either Guangzhou Auto or Fiat, it seems that the production plans are very much on the table. Jeeps current Chinese line up is based on the Compass, Patriot, Grand Cherokee and Wrangler product lines, there is no hope of the either the Grand Cherokee or the Wrangler being produced in China as they are iconic American vehicles that people buy for their ‘American-ness‘, but compact SUV’s are extremely popular with Chinese consumers.
Our sources indicate that Jeep have two new products lined up for China based on new platforms and should see production in 2014. The first model is a C-SUV that should be seeing production lines in 2013 and a second D-SUV in 2015. Other sources tell us that this new model is thought to a reworked Jeep Liberty based on the CUSW platform which is also shared with the current Fiat Viaggio and Dodge Dart.
Although Jeep survives on the fringes of the Chinese auto market it has performed well this year, 2011 sales reached 22,294 models whilst 2012 sales reached 33,463 in the first nine months of the year alone
Quote: What I think this election showed is that the GOP is way out of touch on social issues and on the wrong side of history on essentially all of them.
Gay rights, women's pay and rights, contraception, etc. Pretty much every major social issue, the people that predominantly believe in the GOP way of thinking are the seniors and the ultra-conservatives. Running on a platform of denying gay rights and contraception does not resonate with the vast number of voters these days and it will continue to ring more and more hollow over the next few elections.
You want to run as the party of smaller government? Then get the government out of all these issues and stop trying to block progress because the only people that this message resonates with are - literally - dying off. The demographics Democrats used to win by 10% (the youth vote, the latino vote)\, they are now winning by 30% and those demographics are growing every election. The social issues the Rs represent no longer represent mainstream America.
No one ran against gay rights, that I know of. Womens' equal pay has been federally protected by law for years. The Lily Ledbetter Act was largely redundant. It just allowed women to sue going back decades instead of years. Kinda ridiculous, actually. Contraception? No one ran against contraception. They were against forcing religious organization to pay for birth control in opposition to their beliefs. But who cares about religious freedom anyway? Frankly, I'm against forcing insurance companies to provide birth control for free. Why should birth control drugs be treated any differently than life saving drugs people have to pay for? (blood pressure medication, etc)
Of course, the Woman Wage Gap is a myth at best to begin with, though it is loosely based off of some skewing facts.
Young single and childless women are making more than men. link
Looks like it has to do more with the choices women make that creates the gap. You take time off of work to have a child, then you are making less money. You don't stay late at work so you can spend time with your children, you don't make as much money.
Of course, there are other things that do create the disparity as men are more likely to take higher paying dangerous jobs than women and are less likely to be working part-time retail jobs as men tend to be geared to look for higher paying jobs to "support a family with." Even if you compare full-time working men over full-time working women there is a disparity because even if the average full-time number of hours might be 35, men tend to stay at work for longer hours and women work for shorter hours because they prefer it.
A lot of the gap is also because they lump working men and women from all vocations. Women tend to be attracted to more service jobs that pay less than the more dangerous or riskier vocations that men are drawn to. Look at teachers and how many more are female as opposed to male. Look at social workers and so forth down the line. Women simply take on lesser paying jobs mostly out of choice.
Of course, if a woman is in the same field as a man and doing the same job, then she should be paid the same as the man as long as it also accounts for raises. If the man has been at the job longer and has been doing a great job, it should be reasonable that he gets paid more than a woman who just got the job. But the wage gap is not caused by women being paid less than a man in the same field and working the same job and the same amount of hours, but the choices they make in the process like making for family time, her choice of profession, the amount of social or rest time she wants to take away from the job.
Quote: What policies did Romney say that he was going to put in place that are extreme?
Healthcare from 1999 until 2009 went up 131%, yet you don't feel putting medicare in the hands of insurabce companies would be extreme to the elderly in our country?
Have you taken a look, I mean a real in depth look at the Paul Ryan budget?
Quote: Romney is far from a far right guy. He is way, way too left for me, actually.
Well let me say this, the Tea Party movement is killing the GOP. And the GOP platform is being dictated by them. so if that's your view of "conservatism" then I believe you may wish to re-think your definition of moderate.
Quote: Oh well ..... 4 years from now when we're in recession again .... and in debt to the tune of $25 trillion (that's actually on the books) with Social Security and Medicare about to collapse, and young people who used to rely on restaurants and retail jobs for full time employment unable to find them ....... well ..... I'l just say .. "Too bad, you brought it on yourself".
You know, I've been reading this entire thread and your posts within it.
The only poll you musy have put much stock in was the Rasmussen poll. Since I watch FOX News myself, many of your election feelings as it pertains to results seemed to mirror those. By switching back and forth between the networks, I know who it was that were saying the exact same things you were.
Here's the reality. To save us from going into a depression, the banks had to be bailed out, the auto industry had to be bailed out and the list goes on. Yet even with all of that, 4 trillion was added to the deficit.
Yet somehow, your "source" has convinced you, that without having to take such drastic measures over the next four years, we will suddenly add 8 trillion more.
That's not going to happen Ytown. Your source has been wrong for quite some time now. It's built around fear and nothing else. Budget cuts are coming. A tax increase of the very wealthy is coming. Tax breaks to businesses that hire in the U.S. is coming.
I believe you really need to step back and look at the election predictions by your "source" just to see how skewed their view really is. According to them, they and talk radio are the ONLY place you get the truth and everyone else in the world are liars? You don't see the conspiracy theory attitude in that?
You can't see how the Rasmussen poll placed 24th in accuracy, yet that is what you were spoon fed? I like you YTown, I really do. But please, just open your mind to listenning to a sampling of different news sources and just realise, the truth isn't found on the CURRENT Network or on FOX News.
The truth lies somewhere in the middle of all of it. Not with one extreme or the other. The sky is not falling. Just look back and see how mislead you were about this election from one side.
And remember that's the exact same side telling you all of this. These are almost a mirror of what was said about Clinton entering his second term and how bad was the economy when he left office? When he ran, they called him "the most liberal democrat".
Oh, I know it wasn't great as some made it out to be, but it wasn't bad. Do you know how many times they have called the democratic preident or presidential nominee "the most liberal democrat there is"? EVERY time! Then like after Obama was elected, they called Pelosi the most liberal, Harry Reed the most liberal...... and now when it was time for the presidential race? Obama again was the most liberal. They use that catch pjrase to try to cast a shodow over every democrat that is running or in office to try to cast them as evil. It's just plain crazy rhetoric.
Still not catching on?
You look at one side, listen to one side and make your prediction based on one side. What is spoon fed from either side is not accurate. Once you open up your mind to that, the sky will stop falling and your predictions won't be so far off base.
I've seen many independant reports by many economists that predicted 9.5 million jobs will be created no matter who was elected. But of course I used many sources from many places, not just a one sided viewpoint.
You are wrong with what you have said above YTown and the next four years will point that out. Seriously, you need to look at more than one viewpoint and open up your mind to the fact they all have agendas. Once you get past that, things willbe far more accurate in your way of thinking.
Chicken Little took a while to figure it out too, but at least he finaly did........
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
NO JOBS in the U.S. will be moving to China. The current models made in the U.S. will be staying in the U.S.
These jobs are based on two new models that are not being manufactured now to meet a higher demand overseas.
Once again the claim that was made is that automotive jobs would be "moved to china".
That was and is a lie. Maybe you should actually look at the accusation made and read your source first. But that will happen when desperation sets in to try to make falsehoods a reality.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Quote: Romney's as honorable and decent man as I recall in public life. But by the time the Dem machine and the media was done with him, he'd been called a felon (by the president) and accused of murdering some guy's wife. There is no Republican candidate who can withstand that kind of attack. Idiots believe that stuff and go around and whisper "Halliburton" and "Bain Capital" as if it is some sort of evil hex. It's a stubborn type of stupidity that can't be combatted with logic. A lot of other factors favor the Dems going forward. Voter fraud gives them a built-in two or three points, and they scream bloody murder if anyone dares call for voter ID legislation. It's racist, or something. States that welcome illegal immigrants get higher census counts and therefore more Congressional seats and electoral votes. Finally, the Dems also have passed the tipping point, where voters with their hands out outnumber voters who accept personal responsibility. Three and a half years from now, when things still suck or are even worse, we'll still be hearing about W. Or John Boehner.
If they insist on electoral vote system, it should be based on the number of registered voters in a state, not the population.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Quote: Romney's as honorable and decent man as I recall in public life. But by the time the Dem machine and the media was done with him, he'd been called a felon (by the president) and accused of murdering some guy's wife. There is no Republican candidate who can withstand that kind of attack. Idiots believe that stuff and go around and whisper "Halliburton" and "Bain Capital" as if it is some sort of evil hex. It's a stubborn type of stupidity that can't be combatted with logic. A lot of other factors favor the Dems going forward. Voter fraud gives them a built-in two or three points, and they scream bloody murder if anyone dares call for voter ID legislation. It's racist, or something. States that welcome illegal immigrants get higher census counts and therefore more Congressional seats and electoral votes. Finally, the Dems also have passed the tipping point, where voters with their hands out outnumber voters who accept personal responsibility. Three and a half years from now, when things still suck or are even worse, we'll still be hearing about W. Or John Boehner.
If they insist on electoral vote system, it should be based on the number of registered voters in a state, not the population.
Quote: If they insist on electoral vote system, it should be based on the number of registered voters in a state, not the population.
Did you have that same opinion when Bush beat Gore? Gore even won the popular vote.
Just sayin'...........
I have always thought that the electorals should be split up within the states rather than giving it completely. For instance, Chicago has the most electorals in Illinois based on population, but the rest of the state could now have a voice as well. The opposite would be true in alot of the red states where there are cities that are silenced by a rural majority.
I'm not sure who it would favor, but I think it would be more fair.
Quote: Here's the reality. To save us from going into a depression, the banks had to be bailed out, the auto industry had to be bailed out and the list goes on. Yet even with all of that, 4 trillion was added to the deficit.
Yet somehow, your "source" has convinced you, that without having to take such drastic measures over the next four years, we will suddenly add 8 trillion more.
Whoa, whoa, whoa...you might want to do some research and math about the bailout before you go spouting off.
The bank bailouts had a cost around $200-$300 billion. The auto bailouts had a cost of $85 billion, not counting the money we've recouped.
That adds up to less than 10% of the deficit Obama has run up (actually it's more like $4.5 trillion). Where did the other 90+% come from?
Oh yeah, he had that $1 trillion stimulus package that was supposed to cut unemployment with millions of "shovel-ready" jobs...how did that turn out?
So, do you really think not having the bailouts this term will really affect how much Obama raises the deficit by?
Short answer: no.
Edit: I'm not say the deficit will go up $8 trillion the next 4 years, but to think it won't go up another $3-$5 trillion is being delusional.
Quote: What I think this election showed is that the GOP is way out of touch on social issues and on the wrong side of history on essentially all of them.
Gay rights, women's pay and rights, contraception, etc. Pretty much every major social issue, the people that predominantly believe in the GOP way of thinking are the seniors and the ultra-conservatives. Running on a platform of denying gay rights and contraception does not resonate with the vast number of voters these days and it will continue to ring more and more hollow over the next few elections.
You want to run as the party of smaller government? Then get the government out of all these issues and stop trying to block progress because the only people that this message resonates with are - literally - dying off. The demographics Democrats used to win by 10% (the youth vote, the latino vote)\, they are now winning by 30% and those demographics are growing every election. The social issues the Rs represent no longer represent mainstream America.
This is the part of the Republican ticket I do not like; I agree with what you posted 100%. The social issues are not enough to push me to the liberal side, but I am of the belief that this should not be a political issue at all. As much as I hate to say it, I agreed with Biden's answer on abortion in the debate. He doesn't agree at all with it at all, but it should not be the governments place to dictate - my thoughts exactly. On gay marriage, I could care less who wants to marry who. I do not understand why a man would want to marry a man or a woman marry a woman but it is also not my place to tell them what they should do. It doesn't affect me in any way. Contraception? I cannot believe how big of a deal this one is.
I think i'm right along with the last few posts. I use to say that I was an independent. Now I guess that I'm so sick of the extreme republicans that it has moved me away from all republicans. Social issues like the ones mentioned above, are not realistic or in line with todays society. To take such extreme opposite stances on issues such as rape, contraception, abortion, sex ed and even education with the backing of intelligent design makes me feel like we are moving backward not forward. For instance, I've always said i'm personally against abortion, but what gives me the right to tell someone else what they should do with their body. Who am I, nobody. The GOP preaches smaller gov't but in the Bush years we had largest expansion of gov't in decades and they continually wanna push legislation to effect our everyday lives to force me to believe in their values. Just run for office and stop chastising everyone and labeling everyone something negative who thinks different. And then I may vote for that party.
I agree with a lot of what you say, except I feel abortion affects someone other than the woman's body - basically giving rights to the unborn baby. That being said, I think a good stance for the GOP would be to follow the Libertarian line of thought on this and at least say, at a federal level, that abortion should be a state issue. There's a huge argument for that, although with R v. W, it would be hard to accomplish. Regardless, though, it would be my stance if I ran for office as a GOP member.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
How much do you think healthcare costs have increased since the Obamacare law took effect?
Who do you think helped write that damn law? The insurance companies had major, heavy duty input into the final product ...... and we have no idea what thet final product is going to be yet. We've received a few goodies ...... but haven't paid the price for them yet.
We're also seeing the impact of the healthcare law on employers already. Many that already offer coverage are planning to, or already have, dropped insurance and pay the fine instead, since it is far cheaper. Other employers have eliminated full time positions within much of their companies so that they don't have to pay the mandate. This is especially true among restaurants and retail companies. I know a lot of people in the restaurant industry, and they are specifically forbidden to hire anyone as a full time employee.
Let's face it, a franchisee for a fast food chain can't afford this mandate unless they raise prices dramatically. Most already pay coverage for their management, but not for their employees. However, some, like McDonalds, offer a plan that will cover major expenses at a reasonable price for the employee. (last I heard, it was around $100/month for a single employee) It wasn't a perfect plan, and it carried higher deductibles, but it would get a person into the hospital, and help with some of the catastrophic expenses. Those plans are now illegal for employers to offer, even for part time employees.
When I ran my restaurant, before my back went AWOL, I had between 15-20 full time employees, and probably 40-45 overall. Many of my openers/lunch employees, and closers, were full time.
I know that my old store can't afford to do that anymore, and most of those full time people are gone, or reduced to part time status.
Why?
Because, my employer was a franchisee. They have numerous stores throughout Ohio. They simply cannot afford the additional expense that Obamacare would force upon them.
The average fast food restaurant probably makes between $4000 - $15,000 per month in profit per month. Some run at a flat line or slight loss, but because of franchise agreements on other, more profitable stores, the franchisee must keep those locations open anyway.
My final restaurant was one one of those flatliners when I took it over, and was making somewhere in the $3000 - $5000 per month range in profit. It was a store that was required in the franchise agreement to remain open, and if the franchisee closed it, they could lose the rights to the entire market. Further, as part of the franchise agreement, the franchisee was required to purchase the property that the restaurant is on. It was cheap property, but an additional expense nonetheless.
Let's go back and think about those full time employees. Let's say that there were only 15 of them. With Obamacare, and because the franchise (company) would have at least that same number of full time employees at all of their locations, they would be considered to have more than 50 full time employees. They have that in hourly management alone, combined across their company, not to mention salaried managers. Their managers are all covered by employer sponsored insurance. Employees used to be able to buy a coverage plan similar to the McDonalds plans. Anyway, because this location had 15-20 full time employees, (and because the company overall had more than 50) the company would be forced to cover them. all. bear in mind that this location was fighting to make profit, and in its best months made between $3000 - $5000 per month.
With 15 employees (low end) the employer will pay $37,500/year in fines, unless they can find a less expensive healthcare plan to cover their employees. They would probably pay the fine.
At the high end, this sstore makes $60,000 per year in profit.
With Obamacare, it will instead make only $22,500 for the year in profit. That's not much incentive for the business owner to keep the doors open ..... or to have full time employees.
So ... those 15-20 full time employees will find themselves reduced to part time levels. Instead of being scheduled 38 hours/week, they will have to figure out how to live on 22-25 hours/week instead. That might not sound like much, but all of my full time employees made over minimum wage, and some made significantly over that. A $10/hour employee that loses 13-16 hours/week loses $130-$160/week under this example.
Think they'll be happy? How does this help them?
Further, most people with health insurance already pay a significant out of pocket cost. I paid about $6000/year for the past 3 years after deductibles, co-pays, tests that are not fully covered, prescription co-pays, and my COBRA payment. It would have been about $2000 less if I had still been on my employer sponsored plan ..... but still a significant out of pocket cost.
Obamacare does not address this. It also does not address cost controls. What it does do is try to push employers to the point where they cannot afford to provide coverage, so that the federal government can then step in. That's when costs will really explode ....
But, who cares? It's just one more item on a trillion dollar deficit .... added to a $16 trillion national debt ...... and $50 trillion in already unfunded mandates .......
yeah, there's no way that we're headed towards Greece .......
As far as polls, Gallup had Romney ahead as well as Rasmussen, and a couple of other smaller polls. Their methodology was obviously wrong as far as turnout models. They were right about the midterms last time around, and wrong this time. In the end the final poll spoke, and Obama was re-elected.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: This is the part of the Republican ticket I do not like; I agree with what you posted 100%. The social issues are not enough to push me to the liberal side, but I am of the belief that this should not be a political issue at all. As much as I hate to say it, I agreed with Biden's answer on abortion in the debate. He doesn't agree at all with it at all, but it should not be the governments place to dictate - my thoughts exactly. On gay marriage, I could care less who wants to marry who. I do not understand why a man would want to marry a man or a woman marry a woman but it is also not my place to tell them what they should do. It doesn't affect me in any way. Contraception? I cannot believe how big of a deal this one is.
This is pretty much me too. I hate the fact that certain social issues become the quicksand these guys fall into. Yet, I am an evil Republican...the evil guy wanting to not be like Greece or any Euro-country. But we get lumped into this.
Anyway, I do want to thank those who voted for Obama. Put options and covered calls as a hedge against the big "0" winning made it a little less painful. If you are going to be depressed about the future of the country, you might as well get paid for it.
Quote: How much do you think healthcare costs have increased since the Obamacare law took effect?
As far as polls, Gallup had Romney ahead as well as Rasmussen, and a couple of other smaller polls. Their methodology was obviously wrong as far as turnout models. They were right about the midterms last time around, and wrong this time. In the end the final poll spoke, and Obama was re-elected.
ytown, I am in a HSA at work that was a Blue Cross plan. In 2012 the premium cost that I pay went down 3.5%, my deductible stayed the same. That is the first decrease since the early 90's. My healthcare costs have been going up 4-12% per year as far back as I can remember.
I just got a rough overview of our cost for 2013. Meeting on actual cost are in a couple of weeks. The plans montly cost is said to be going up "slightly" but they are bringing down our deductibles by quite a bit and they will even cover drug co-pays after our deductibles are met. Deductible 1500 single, 3k family. Note: we are in a program that pays 100% of all in-network cost after deductibles are met.
As far as the polls and the elections. I watch little bits of MSNBC & Fox but spend most of my time on Bloomberg & NPR. For the first time ever, I also paid alot of attention to Nate Silver and the statistical edge. I know that you get talking points from Fox; I hear one of their "news" people talking about something or one of their experts discussing something and you post it on here like it is fact. Most of the times it is biased opinion and not fact and it really showed this election cycle. You spend alot of time on here and at times you view is really diminshed because of that fox angle.
How much do you think healthcare costs have increased since the Obamacare law took effect?
Ah, well, let's see, My wife and I are currently covered under her plan and the costs haven't risen since either April or May of this year. Now, I'm pretty sure they will again when the new contract takes effect in I think April or May, but they do every year so I'm not sure it's due to Obamacare because they went up every year prior to the passage of Obamacare., in fact, they went up every year even before Obama declared he was running for office.,
As for the plan I offer my employees, it's gone up but literally, no more than $5 week.
As of this moment, I've not seen any effects on insurance premiums that I can attribute directly to Obamacare.
That doesn't mean I won't, it just means I haven't yet.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
The other thing we’ve done is to say, what are the critical needs of small business? A lot of time, one of the biggest challenges is to make sure that you, as a sole proprietor, that you can get health insurance for you and your family. So when you hear about the Affordable Care Act — Obamacare — and I don’t mind the name because I really do care. That’s why we passed it. You should know that once we have fully implemented, you’re going to be able to buy insurance through a pool so that you can get the same good rates as a group that if you’re an employee at a big company you can get right now — which means your premiums will go down.”
— President Obama, campaign speech in Cincinnati, July 16, 2012 (He got 3 Pinocchios, by the way)
President Obama has embraced the phrase “Obamacare,” once originally intended as an epithet by the heath-care law’s opponents, but we were a bit surprised the other day when he declared that health insurance premiums were going to go down.
We have previously dinged Republicans for claiming that premiums have already gone up because of the law. And we have noted the president made what we called a “foolish, dubious” campaign promise with a huge asterisk — that premiums would be $2,500 lower than they would have been without the law.
But, here, the president is claiming that premiums actually will go down for people in the individual and small group markets. The health-care law is obviously a work in progress but are there data that back up this sweeping claim?
The Facts
Since the law has not taken full effect yet, we have to rely on studies that estimate the potential impact. A 2011 White House report, using Congressional Budget Office data, argues some small businesses (ie, sole proprietors with employees) will have access to a new marketplace where they can compare benefits and services and find a plan that works for them. The theory is that these new exchanges will help drive down costs for businesses.
For instance, the White House report says the CBO estimates that small employers will experience decreased premiums of up to 2 percent. The report, also citing CBO, also claims that individuals purchasing coverage on the exchanges would see premium savings of 14 to 20 percent when compared to the purchase of the same policy without the law.
Sounds great, right? But the law also mandates a number of significant changes that many experts believe will put upward pressure on premiums. There are potentially important policy reasons for each of these changes. But remember, you usually don’t get something for nothing.
Here are some of the key factors:
1. Currently insurance companies offer lower premiums to younger Americans, since they generally have lower health costs. But starting in 2014, the law implements an age band so that the amount an older individual pays will be no more than three times what a younger individual pays. So if a state currently allows an age band of 5:1, older Americans might see a premium decrease — but younger Americans would see a premium spike.
2. A similar dynamic exists with the law’s requirement that insurers selling policies through the health exchanges will no longer be able to charge different premiums based on a person’s health status when coverage is first purchased. This is known as a community rating. So healthier individuals generally will see higher premiums.
3. The popular provision that requires insurers to accept everyone regardless of their health status (i.e., pre-existing conditions) also will transfer costs to healthier individuals.
4. Insurers must offer an “essential health benefits” package, providing coverage in 10 categories. The list includes: ambulatory patient services; emergency services; hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
It’s a great package, but the benefits are more extensive than what most individuals and small businesses already purchase. So that will also boost premiums, especially if you currently have a less extensive plan. A report in the June edition of Health Affairs found that “more than half of Americans who had individual insurance in 2010 were enrolled in plans that would not qualify as providing essential coverage under the rules of the exchanges in 2014.”
5. The law also contains various taxes and fees, including a health insurance tax. Those costs presumably would be passed on to consumers, resulting in higher premiums.
Every legislative change has winners and losers. All things being equal, the list above suggests some of the biggest losers would be the young and healthy, though Americans might believe that is a fair price to pay — because eventually people become old and unhealthy. (A study for the state of Ohio found a healthy young man would experience a rate increase of 90 to 130 percent while a 60-year-old with chronic health conditions would see a significant premium decrease.) Moreover, the law provides subsidies to low-income people, so the effect of premium increases on that population may be mitigated.
There have been several national and state studies, conducted by credible analysts, that have attempted to calculate the impact of these changes on premiums.
The good news is that there would be a significant expansion of people with health insurance. And, after tax subsidies, many people may experience premium decreases. One could argue that overall there are more winners than losers.
But the bad news is that, on average, premiums almost certainly will go up — with some people really getting hit with increases. “Based on the analysis of the individual market, there is a concern for rate shock to a material portion of the population,” a report for Rhode Island said. “The individuals who currently are qualified for preferred rates will be seeing large increases in their healthcare premiums if they do not qualify for premium subsidies.”
Here’s a summary of the research:
A nationwide study conducted by Milliman Inc. for the Society of Actuaries found that nationwide the premiums in the individual market would increase from 8 to 37 percent in 2014 — with a cumulative increase of as much as 122 percent between 2013 and 2017.
Indiana determined the law would boost premiums in the individual market on average by 75 to 95 percent and in the small employer market by 5-10 percent in 2014.
Ohio found rates would go up 55 to 85 percent above current rates, before tax credits.
Minnesota concluded that individual market premiums will increase between 26 to 42 percent
Maine said individual premiums will increase on average by 40 percent and premiums in the small group market are likely to increase 8 to 9 percent. About 20 percent of the individual market would still experience premium increases even after subsidies.
Maryland concluded individual premiums will go up on average by 34 to 36 percent and in the small employer market on average by 2 percent
Wisconsin found that before tax credits, the average premium increase in the individual market will be 30 percent.
Colorado said individual premiums will go up on average 19 percent.
Rhode Island found that before tax subsidies, premiums for individuals will increase on average by 8 percent. *** So how does the White House report present such a rosy outlook, using data from the Congressional Budget Office? It tends to highlight the favorable data and ignore or play down CBO findings that undercut its argument.
So, yes, the CBO says 57 percent of the people in the exchanges will get tax subsidies, but that means 43 percent will not, and thus would not be able to offset any increase in premiums. The CBO also said that subsidies would cover nearly two-thirds of the total premiums.
Moreover, the CBO makes clear that average premiums would be 27 to 30 percent higher because the law demands greater insurance coverage (page 6). The CBO emphasized that those provisions, along with others, “ would have a much greater effect on premiums in the nongroup [individual] market than in the small group market, and they would have no measurable effect on premiums in the large group market.” On page 11 of the report, the CBO notes in a headline: “A Greater Actuarial Value Would Increase Nongroup Premiums.” The law’s backers, however, believe that over time, increased insurance coverage for more Americans will make the health-care system more efficient and ultimately reduce costs.
But that is far in the future. The report for Wisconsin, for instance, concluded that a majority of the individuals in the non-group market would pay more in premiums in 2016 than they pay today — both before and after tax credits are applied.
Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who advised the administration on the health-care law and co-authored the Wisconsin, Colorado, Maine and Minnesota studies, said the president’s comment was “a bit too sweeping. What we know is that for individuals the majority in most states (Wisconsin is the only exception I know of so far) will see premiums fall after tax-credits. For small firms it is less clear.”
The Pinocchio Test
The president asserted that because of the law, small business and individual premiums “will go down.” But the reality is much more complicated than that.
The law’s provisions, especially the requirement for essential benefits, will almost certainly increase premiums, though tax subsidies will help mitigate the impact for a little over half of the people in the exchanges. But a lot of other people — such as a young male who currently has a plan that does not include all of the required benefits — are likely going to have sticker shock when they see what happens to their premiums starting in 2014.
As we said, you don’t get something for nothing. And the president should be more careful about suggesting that is the case, especially when discussing a complex law with still-uncertain ramifications.
Three Pinocchios
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
The first two links are projections prior to this past election,, in fact just prior to this last election.
Two things, projections don't always come to pass and if the opposition candidate suggests that they will, be skeptical.
beyond that, I have no idea if Obamacare will increase costs.. I do know they will rise, but I don't know if you can assert that the reason will be Obamacare given that they've risen every year for as long as I can remember.
And it didn't matter who was in the White House. At least it hasn't so far.
Let me project this for ya,, had Romney won, Healthcare costs and insurance costs would have risen.. Now that is a projection you can count on.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Some of those projections were by a guy who actually worked for the Obama administration on heathcare.
The Washington Post guy has been quoted by both sides, so I figured that I would just use his input again. As he brings up, the administration uses the absolutely rosiest projections that they can possible justify in any way, shape, or form to make their case. The bottom line is that a lot of people are going to see significant increases in their healthcare costs ..... many being young, healthy people. (who, ironically, voted for Obama in large numbers) Medicare Advantage members, like my mother, will see increases in their costs, because the subsidies to Medicare Advantage are going away. (That's part of that oft talked about $700 billion) However, the truly dishonest part of the whole thing is that the Obama administration actually bumped up Advantage funding for this year ..... to get through the election.
Plus, as I said earlier, many people who rely upon restaurant and retail jobs for full time employment will find those positions fewer and farther between simply because of the new economics forced upon employers by Obamacare. There aren't businesses that are making million of dollars in profits per location. They are making, in many cases like fast food franchises, less than $100K per location in profit. When a person relies upon their restaurants for their livelihood, they are not going to accept a 20-30% decrease in profit if they can avoid it. They will cut costs and/or raise prices to compensate. That is the way of the business world, if they want to stay in business. (as I'm sure you can attest to)
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: If they insist on electoral vote system, it should be based on the number of registered voters in a state, not the population.
Did you have that same opinion when Bush beat Gore? Gore even won the popular vote.
Just sayin'...........
Personally never liked the electoral system period, basically the election is decided among a few states, the rest of them are basically wasting their time voting.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Whoa, whoa, whoa...you might want to do some research and math about the bailout before you go spouting off.
The bank bailouts had a cost around $200-$300 billion. The auto bailouts had a cost of $85 billion, not counting the money we've recouped.
That adds up to less than 10% of the deficit Obama has run up (actually it's more like $4.5 trillion). Where did the other 90+% come from?
My point was a simple one and you yourself actually helped point out that fact. If you're looking for a breakdown of stinulas spending this should do..........
The rest? I am not a big enough fan of either guys running to bother looking up enough info to try to convince you, me or anyone else they are 100% right. In fact, I don't believe any politician is. It's just that this place is so one sided, and some are vindictive they try to make one side seem like Satan while making the other side out to be Saints. By no means is this the case.
Quote: Oh yeah, he had that $1 trillion stimulus package that was supposed to cut unemployment with millions of "shovel-ready" jobs...how did that turn out?
So far there is 160 billion of the stimulas left according to the figures linked above. Over the last two years, the GOP has blocked every jobs bill to cross the senate floor. So far, that isn't working out for anyone.
So far, the GOP senate has used a fillibuster to block a job bill for veterans, back in July another jobs bill and the list goes on. All you have to do is compare the filibusters by this Senate over the two year period of any former Senate compared to this one to see just how much and how hard this Senate has worked to stop every measure Obama has tried to ennact. Even the last two years of the proven Bush failed policies didn't face as many filibusters as Obamas first two years. And here's why.......
You would have thought they would give the man enough rope to hang himself. Instead, they have shown themselves as obstructionists. This helped cost them the election them the election. And foolish statements such as these show being total obstructionists throughout this Senarw was their goal from day one. Did they really feel stating that obstructing a demcaticly elected president would do them any favors in this election cycle?
Quote: So, do you really think not having the bailouts this term will really affect how much Obama raises the deficit by?
I do believe if Obama can actually get some of his "positive programs, tax proposals and jobs bills" through the Senate, yes. If this Senate continues to stonewall anything and everything that can incease revenue and stop job creation I doubt it.
It all depends if America keeps their eyes open as to who it is stopping his policies from moving forward in relationship on the platform he ran on, it still will not help the GOP cause as was proven by this election.
Quote: Edit: I'm not say the deficit will go up $8 trillion the next 4 years, but to think it won't go up another $3-$5 trillion is being delusional.
And considering Romneys policies pretty much mirrored Bush policies, thinking it wouldn't have gotten even worse under his platform are no less delusional....
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
It's pretty much exactly the same as Obamacare. It's what Romney was for before he was against it. Everyone tries to use predictions rather than an example that has already been in place for some time.
His one time "model for the nation" suddenly turned into a curse when it was Obamas idea?
Come on man!
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
It's pretty much exactly the same as Obamacare. It's what Romney was for before he was against it. Everyone tries to use predictions rather than an example that has already been in place for some time.
His one time "model for the nation" suddenly turned into a curse when it was Obamas idea?
Come on man!
That's one big reason why I wanted nothing to do with Romney, until he became the only viable alternative to Obama.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
BTW= Only a very few parts of Obamacare have been ennacted to this point as you should well know. So why don't you actually wait until it all takes effect to ask?
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Had he stayed the same person he was in Mass., I would have voted for him too. Any time someone has a split personality I must question their character as many would normaly do accept when it comes to politics.
And I don't see how returning to the policies of Bush is a viable alternative given the resuts we all saw.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Mitch McConnell made those comments after Obama and the Democrats had completely shut the Republicans out of the legislative process. Why wouldn;t they commit to doing all they could at that point to making him a one term President when he wouldn't even consider any of their ideas, no matter how big or small. People act like McConnell said that the day Obama took office, and that's simply not the case.
As far as that veterans' bill, there was something in that which was considered "poison" to Republicans IIRC. It would be like the Republicans passing a "jobs" bill with a provision that outlawed abortion. It wasn't that extreme, but it was something that was unacceptable to the Republicans.
Regardless, we are where we are, which is back where we've been. The President better learn to lead and work with both Democrats and Republicans, or his Presidential legacy will be one of a 6 year quagmire.
Plus, the Republican leadership in the Senate better actually start considering a budget. I honestly cannot believe that the American people gave them control again, when they haven't allowed a budget to even be considered for ov¶r 3 years. That simply amazes me.Of course the fact that the Republicans had some candidates who turned out to be total idiots, who babbled on idiotically about stuff they should never have lured into didn't help.
When will these Republicans learn that the best answer to any abortion question is "I personally believe that life begins at conception. I do, however, know that settled law states that abortion is legal, and is within the domain of the states, so that's where things stand." Period.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
It's pretty much exactly the same as Obamacare. It's what Romney was for before he was against it. Everyone tries to use predictions rather than an example that has already been in place for some time.
His one time "model for the nation" suddenly turned into a curse when it was Obamas idea?
Come on man!
I'm not sure that the Mass. healthcare system is fully what it was intended.
It now costs the state 2x as much than it did in 2006 when the bill was enacted, many people only obtain insurance each year, long enough to not be penalized. Health care costs still rose since it's inception as did medical bankrupcy filings (Although that may be attribitued to the economy dieing)
So what we know so far is that while almost all the citizens have coverage, the state is on the hook for a lot of money (unlike the feds they can't just print more), costs have not been put under control, and people are still filing for bankruptcy due to medical financial problems.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
NO JOBS in the U.S. will be moving to China. The current models made in the U.S. will be staying in the U.S.
These jobs are based on two new models that are not being manufactured now to meet a higher demand overseas.
Once again the claim that was made is that automotive jobs would be "moved to china".
That was and is a lie. Maybe you should actually look at the accusation made and read your source first. But that will happen when desperation sets in to try to make falsehoods a reality.
Well here is the ad, and the ad never said jobs are moving, It didn't even imply it either because that wasn't the point. It is clear they are saying America Tax payer money given to GM, did not help build NEW American jobs, as the NEW jobs are in China, not Ohio.
When is the Obama promise for NEW Ohio auto industry jobs going to happen, he has had 4 years and now 8, and not one new plant. Lets ask the current plant workers of Moraine Ohio...oh yeah, wait..
My comment has nothing to do with Romneycare or Obamacare.
But the problem with healthcare in general is the costs. There is something wrong with a system that charges $8 per aspirin when you're in the hospital. Not per day, per pill. And it's usually 2 pills every 4 hours. Add that up.
$2000 for a half mile trip to the ER in an ambulance? That's not even counting the medicine that you received on that trip, that's just the trip. The ER visit, the doctor's charges and the medicine (all billed separately mind you) are all in addition to that.
Medical care is the ONLY area that I can think of that you cannot compare prices. Everytime I've asked what the costs were, the only answer I have ever gotten is "it depends on what is done." And they can never tell me what those are until AFTER I have had whatever it was done.
A visit to the hospital can run into the tens of thousands in a matter of days. I understand that doctors and nurses have spent years in training and education, but c'mon man....that's insane. There has to be a better way to price things and make them reasonable. Or at the very least compare-able.
KeysDawg
The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. - Carl Sagan
I agree. Wife just had outpatient surgery yesterday. In the recovery room, as we were getting her ready to leave, the nurse said "Oh, wait, I'll get you another ice pack so she can have one on, and one in the freezer."
I said "no, we can't afford that." My guess is we'd have been billed an extra $40 or so for something I can go to the store and get for $2 or 3 bucks.
Same with the "skin marking pen" (well, not the "same")......doc came in, took the pen off the table, tore off the sealed plastic pouch, drew 2 lines on my wife's arm, then gave it to me.
It will be interesting to see how much that pen was when I get the itemized bill. $10 or so?
![[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]](http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z33/booger52/phpGGRdhwAM.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png)
