Who do you support for Governor in Oh...
Che Reagan Christ

Seville, OH

#6770 Jul 26, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Fair enough:
CBO report says healthcare law could cause as many as 20M to lose coverage
By Julian Pecquet - 03/15/12 12:02 PM ET
As many as 20 million Americans could lose their employer-provided coverage because of President Obama's healthcare reform law, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said in a new report Thursday.
The figure represents the worst-case scenario, CBO says, and the law could just as well increase the number of people with employer-based coverage by 3 million in 2019.
The best estimate, subject to a "tremendous amount of uncertainty," is that about 3 million to 5 million fewer people will obtain coverage through their employer each year from 2019 through 2022.
The new report adds more detail to this week's update of the law's coverage provisions, which CBO released Tuesday. Compared to a year ago, the law is now anticipated to cover 2 million fewer people but cost $50 billion less over 10 years, after factoring penalties paid by individuals and businesses that don't get or provide healthcare coverage.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-r...
Now if DumBama didn't believe Commie Care would cause loss of jobs, why then hand out 1,400 waivers of the bill to businesses until after election? Hmmm.
20 million could lose employer coverage but it could increase employer covered by 3 million.

What possible conclusion can be reached by that?
free

Loveland, OH

#6771 Jul 26, 2012
What makes you so special, son ? You don't come across as a man of wealth, education, of compassion, or humility of good boss/supervisor. Just don't see it ! Just so wrong, son. Not knowing anything about you, jealously is not in the lexicon of emotion.....
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, son. I do what I want when I want. You're just jealous.

Kramers Attorney

Since: Apr 12

Hilliard, OH

#6772 Jul 26, 2012
free wrote:
What makes you so special, son ? You don't come across as a man of wealth, education, of compassion, or humility of good boss/supervisor. Just don't see it ! Just so wrong, son. Not knowing anything about you, jealously is not in the lexicon of emotion.....
<quoted text>
Spot on. He still refuses to discuss his education or job, but never hesitates to criticize those of us who have been successful.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#6773 Jul 27, 2012
Kramers Attorney wrote:
<quoted text>Same company = security, steady salary growth, seniority and family stability.
Tech Transfer = mainly industrial hardware pertaining to pharma manufacturing, biotech and medical imaging. Some direct exports, training, some licensing the rights to manufacture.
I'm satisfied.
we need to meet.

when works for you?

ask glitter for info; and maybe she will want to as well.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#6774 Jul 27, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
20 million could lose employer coverage but it could increase employer covered by 3 million.
What possible conclusion can be reached by that?
as a lawyer you like regulation.

job security.

less regulation means paycut.

I conclude less regulation is best; and to really enforce laws already on the books the correct action path.

we enforce chit now.

make punishment severe.

like dude in movie shooting needs a lifejacket and chopter ride to middle of the atlantic.

he will make good fish food. story over. put on TV and let world watch. Continue till serious crime ends.
Che Reagan Christ

Seville, OH

#6775 Jul 27, 2012
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
as a lawyer you like regulation.
job security.
less regulation means paycut.
I conclude less regulation is best; and to really enforce laws already on the books the correct action path.
we enforce chit now.
make punishment severe.
like dude in movie shooting needs a lifejacket and chopter ride to middle of the atlantic.
he will make good fish food. story over. put on TV and let world watch. Continue till serious crime ends.
What?
Che Reagan Christ

Seville, OH

#6776 Jul 27, 2012
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
as a lawyer you like regulation.
job security.
less regulation means paycut.
I conclude less regulation is best; and to really enforce laws already on the books the correct action path.
we enforce chit now.
make punishment severe.
like dude in movie shooting needs a lifejacket and chopter ride to middle of the atlantic.
he will make good fish food. story over. put on TV and let world watch. Continue till serious crime ends.
By the way, you really ran away hard and fast from you strict construction of the constitution discussion when you realized that many rights you enjoy only exist because the Supreme Court you revile so much "read between the lines" to give them to you.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#6777 Jul 27, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, you really ran away hard and fast from you strict construction of the constitution discussion when you realized that many rights you enjoy only exist because the Supreme Court you revile so much "read between the lines" to give them to you.
elaborate please
Che Reagan Christ

Seville, OH

#6778 Jul 27, 2012
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
elaborate please
You accused "liberal justices" of reading between the lines.

I asked if you thought laws against libel were wrong, whether you thought cops shouldn't be allowed to enter a house to save a child in imminent danger, and whether you thought the police should be able to randomly stop and search vehicles.

You clammed up.
diddley bopp

Houston, OH

#6779 Jul 27, 2012
simple answer, the bible sayeth, <noworkee no eatey> <nocrime no pleaee> darn you hilljacks/janes need some fetchin up.
Che Reagan Christ

Seville, OH

#6780 Jul 27, 2012
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
elaborate please
Here,
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
So there should be no laws against defamation or inducing panic?
here,
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
The police shouldn't be able to enter a home to save a child from imminent danger?
The police should be allowed to set up security checkpoints and search vehicles at random?
here,
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Your "opinion" about what the authors of the Constitution intended in the eminent domain clause sure seems to be developed by your "reading between the lines" to determine what was meant.
I get it. Reading between the lines is only bad when someone other than you does it. You either aren't very smart or have very little integrity.
free

Loveland, OH

#6784 Jul 27, 2012
Sounds the British Parliment. Here....here.... here....no over here....
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Here,
<quoted text>
here,
<quoted text>
here,
<quoted text>
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#6786 Jul 27, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
20 million could lose employer coverage but it could increase employer covered by 3 million.
What possible conclusion can be reached by that?
Quite simple. Employers have enough to deal with without messing around with fines and regulations. They would sooner drop coverage for their employees and be done with it. Employees (particularly younger ones) would then have to get government approved insurance on their own, and many will opt to pay the fine because it's much cheaper.
Che Reagan Christ

Seville, OH

#6787 Jul 27, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite simple. Employers have enough to deal with without messing around with fines and regulations. They would sooner drop coverage for their employees and be done with it. Employees (particularly younger ones) would then have to get government approved insurance on their own, and many will opt to pay the fine because it's much cheaper.
That's what you get out of that statistic? Wow.
free

Loveland, OH

#6788 Jul 27, 2012
Is that a one time fine if they drop company available insurance ? If so and the company no longer provides access to health insurance, that insurance coverage goes away permanently and the insurance goes away as well.
If the company keeps the insurance for white collar staff, the rest may not be able to get back in later, when Romney is elected....
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite simple. Employers have enough to deal with without messing around with fines and regulations. They would sooner drop coverage for their employees and be done with it. Employees (particularly younger ones) would then have to get government approved insurance on their own, and many will opt to pay the fine because it's much cheaper.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#6789 Jul 27, 2012
free wrote:
Is that a one time fine if they drop company available insurance ? If so and the company no longer provides access to health insurance, that insurance coverage goes away permanently and the insurance goes away as well.
If the company keeps the insurance for white collar staff, the rest may not be able to get back in later, when Romney is elected....
<quoted text>
It's an annual fine if Romney is not elected. However, I don't know (based on the courts ruling) if states who opt out can be affected. It would seem to me that this so-called tax would not apply.

Such a shame really. States now have to protect themselves from the federal government.
free

Loveland, OH

#6790 Jul 27, 2012
So does the company health insurance go away and annual fines stay for nothing ? If insurance companies pull out, there's a fine against a benefiot not there ? Or do insurance companies have to hang in there and ready ? for states that don't opt out ?
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
It's an annual fine if Romney is not elected. However, I don't know (based on the courts ruling) if states who opt out can be affected. It would seem to me that this so-called tax would not apply.
Such a shame really. States now have to protect themselves from the federal government.
Che Reagan Christ

Seville, OH

#6791 Jul 27, 2012
free wrote:
So does the company health insurance go away and annual fines stay for nothing ? If insurance companies pull out, there's a fine against a benefiot not there ? Or do insurance companies have to hang in there and ready ? for states that don't opt out ?
<quoted text>
This is the WRONG place to get information on the ACA. XXX is a truck driver. Ask him how to double clutch, don't ask him about complicated issues of policy and legislation. That's like asking an auto mechanic to do your liver transplant.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#6792 Jul 27, 2012
free wrote:
So does the company health insurance go away and annual fines stay for nothing ? If insurance companies pull out, there's a fine against a benefiot not there ? Or do insurance companies have to hang in there and ready ? for states that don't opt out ?
<quoted text>
Employers (with 50 employees or more) are obligated to continue coverage for their employees. The twist is that some bureaucracy will decide on what the federal minimum mandated coverage is. If it's too expensive and complicated for employers to meet this standard, they will (as many articles pointed out) drop coverage for their employees. This of course would free companies from this obligation, but would have to pay a fine which is expected to be much lower than providing the federal minimum mandate.

The burden is now on the individuals who (by Commie Care law) have to provide insurance for themselves. If they fail to do so, they too get a fine for having no coverage. If they decide (or have to) purchase health insurance on their own, it will be more expensive (since they are no longer in a group plan) and will be after-tax money paying for it unlike what it is today which is before tax since it's a benefit.

If the individual doesn't make enough money to purchase his or her own plan, the federal government kicks money in. This is the money collected through these fines of companies and individuals.

xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#6793 Jul 27, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the WRONG place to get information on the ACA. XXX is a truck driver. Ask him how to double clutch, don't ask him about complicated issues of policy and legislation. That's like asking an auto mechanic to do your liver transplant.
And yet after multiple questions by others, you fail to disclose your career. At least I'm honest. I'm proud to be a blue collar working man. As such, I'm proud to be a conservative as well. I'm not wealthy and will probably never be unless I hit the lottery or something. I don't pretend to be something I am not.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ashland Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Working girls here Tue Tony 1
Crist Morris Jarvis (Mar '15) Dec 3 TONY 3
Christina Douglas Dec 3 TONY 1
News Pine Bridge Apartment Robbed, Two Dogs Stabbed Nov '16 Zoe Regen 1
News Beloved bartender shot dead during armed robber... Oct '16 Gman 1
Trump vs Clinton 2016 Oct '16 Sinbad 2
Vote for Donald J Trump Oct '16 MAGA 4

Ashland Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Ashland Mortgages