"The act creates a disincentive for people to work." - Douglas Elmendorf, CBO Director

But the White House said the possible reduction would be due to voluntary steps by workers rather than businesses cutting jobs -- people having the freedom to retire early or spend more time as stay-at-home parents because they no longer had to depend only on their employers for health insurance... Americans would no longer be trapped in a job just to provide coverage for their families, and would have the opportunity to pursue their dreams.

telcoman wrote:Please stop posting false information

telcoman wrote:More news from The New York Post

http://nypost.com/2014/02/07/bridgegate ... e-scandal/

Hmm. Is that true? Is the NYP right for once?

Is our governor lying? Will he end up being impeached?
People in NJ are paying more attention to our governor than what our president is doing.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/state/F ... ement.html

Telcoman

CFO Survey: Affordable Care Act Could Curtail Hiring
https://www.fuqua.duke.edu/news_events/ ... ey2013-q4/

DURHAM, N.C. -- A significant percentage of U.S. chief financial officers indicate that because of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), they may reduce employment growth at their firms and shift toward part-time workers.

EMPLOYMENT EFFECTS OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

Nearly half of U.S. companies are reluctant to hire full-time employees because of the ACA. One in five firms indicates they are likely to hire fewer employees, and another one in 10 may lay off current employees in response to the law.

Other firms will shift toward part-time workers. More than 40 percent of CFOs say their companies will consider switching some jobs to less than 30 hours per week or targeting part-time workers for future employment.

Duke University Expert: At least 129 million will ‘not be able to keep’ health care plan if Obamacare fully implemented
http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/04/exper ... plemented/

If Obamacare is fully implemented, 68 percent of Americans with private health insurance will not be able to keep their plan, according to health care economist Christopher Conover.

Conover is a research scholar in the Center for Health Policy & Inequalities Research at Duke University and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. In an interview with The Daily Caller, he laid out what he estimates the consequences of Obamacare’s implementation will ultimately be.

“Bottom line: of the 189 million Americans with private health insurance coverage, I estimate that if Obamacare is fully implemented, at least 129 million (68 percent) will not be able to keep their previous health care plan either because they already have lost or will lose that coverage by the end of 2014,” he said in an email. ”But of these, ‘only’ the 18 to 50 million will literally lose coverage, i.e., have their plans entirely taken away. This includes 9.2-15.4 million in the non-group market and 9-35 million in the employer-based market. The rest will retain their old plans but have to pay higher rates for Obamacare-mandated bells and whistles.”

Rogue One wrote:

telcoman wrote:More news from The New York Post

http://nypost.com/2014/02/07/bridgegate ... e-scandal/

Hmm. Is that true? Is the NYP right for once?

Is our governor lying? Will he end up being impeached?
People in NJ are paying more attention to our governor than what our president is doing.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/state/F ... ement.html

Telcoman

telcoman wrote:The ACA is here to stay. How many taxpayer dollars did the house waste voting to repeal over 40 times
It's the law so get used to it.
We are never going back to the way things were prior to its passage.
We heard the same BS from the right when SS, medicare, and unemployment insurance was enacted. Not a peep when unpaid for Medicare part D was enacted by Bush.
The right is losing support even in red districts and has no one that will beat Hillary.

Christie is done!

Telcoman

telcoman wrote: If Greg can use the New York Post to make a point then I can use this

telcoman wrote:The right is losing support even in red districts and has no one that will beat Hillary.

Christie is done!

Telcoman

The House: In 35 of the 38 midterms conducted since the start of the Civil War, the president’s party has lost ground in the U.S. House, and never has a president’s party netted anywhere close to the 17 seats the Democrats would need to win the House this year. History alone argues that the Democrats’ attempt to take back the House is effectively without precedent.

Other metrics also suggest that the Democrats are a long shot. Averages of the House generic ballot—the poll question that measures whether voters support a Republican or a Democrat in their House district—show essentially a tie (RealClearPolitics) or Republicans up slightly (HuffPost Pollster). A model by Emory University’s Alan Abramowitz projects that Democrats will need an enormous generic-ballot polling lead—possibly as much as 13 percent—to win House control in 2014. With the current polling, Abramowitz’s model estimates a gain of roughly five to 10 seats for the Republicans.

Despite House retirements that have disproportionately gone the Democrats’ way and made some fairly safe GOP seats very competitive, a smallish Republican gain seems the likeliest outcome in the House, and in few if any conceivable scenarios could the Democrats score a 17-seat net gain. The GOP will have to try mightily to kick away their House majority. It takes some imagination to conjure up something more foolish than the October shutdown for harming Republican interests, but that’s what would be required, and then some.

The Senate: Democrats are quick to admit, at least privately, that 2014’s lineup is a terrible Senate map for them. These Senate seats were last on the ballot in 2008, when the winds were at the Democrats’ backs and Republicans were demoralized by President George W. Bush’s unpopularity and the economic crisis. Conditions are quite different now. President Obama’s average percentage of the two-party 2012 vote in these states was just 46.6 percent, worst among the three Senate classes. Democratic senators currently represent seven states that Mitt Romney won: Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia. Meanwhile, the only Republican who represents an Obama state on the 2014 list is the virtually unbeatable Sen. Susan Collins of Maine.

In 2014 the Senate map unmistakably favors Republicans—although they have recent experience in throwing away their inherent advantages. The GOP almost automatically inherits the Democratic seats held by Sens. Tim Johnson and Jay Rockefeller in the red states of South Dakota and West Virginia, with a better-than-even chance for the Montana seat of Max Baucus (and his probable appointed Democratic successor, Lt. Gov. John Walsh). At the moment, the most competitive Senate general election races involving incumbents are in GOP-leaning states. Sens. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) are all hard pressed as they seek to win another term.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... z2ss0MhrbH

AZhitman wrote:Noel, meet Howie. Every once in a while, the staff at Shady Acres lets him use the computer, and he pops in to cut/paste some drivel from Mother Jones or MSNBC.

Last time he was out on pass, Brobama was riding the wave of "Si Se Puede" and "Hope and Change." You'll have to excuse him for not knowing that Blowbama's approval rating is lower than Satan's... err, I mean GWB's approval rating.

He'll still be writing in BHO's name in on the ballot in 2016, even after the ACA puts him in a state-run facility staffed by illegals with no medical training and washable cloth diapers.

It's kinda sad. I hope he has a couple Capitalist family members who worked hard and saved a lot of money so that he can be taken care of properly.

AZhitman wrote:Dementia has set in... No other way to explain the blind adherence to a party line.

Hillaryous is a clown... at least she's got a little more foreign policy savvy than Brobama. At least she knows where Libya is.

Kill Obamacare, or U.S. healthcare will suffer same fate as Britain

Physicians, for example, were among the strongest opponents of the nationalization of British healthcare in the 1940s; now, they are among its keenest supporters. A similar shift is underway in the United States among the big pharma companies, who love the idea of doing cosy deals with officials controlling vast budgets. Whole new bureaucracies are springing into existence and, as Upton Sinclair liked to observe, "it is difficult to make a man understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it".

In 2013, a report into a Mid Staffordshire Hospital showed that 1200 people had died needlessly. It made for disgusting reading, in every sense. There were reports of people left lying in blood and urine, elderly patients left unassisted in toilets for hours and other things too nauseating to write about.

Obamacare isn't a precise copy of the British system. But there is one parallel on which its exponents are relying, namely the conflation of their healthcare model with the people who work in it. The chairman of the body in charge of overseeing care quality in Britain recently put his finger on the problem:

"The NHS became too powerful to criticize. When things were going wrong, people didn't say anything. If you criticized the NHS — the attitude was 'how dare you?'"

Read the full article here: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/artic ... slideout=1

AZhitman wrote:The fact remains the ACA is an unsustainable fraud - you can argue until your Viagra starts working, I'll still be right.

AZhitman wrote:Howie - If you had to explain OC to someone who knew nothing about the program, how would you do so?