OK Health Care Freedom Amendment, Sta...

OK Health Care Freedom Amendment, State Question 756

Created by CitizenTopix on Oct 11, 2010

1,604 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

DoesntMatter

Cushing, OK

#44348 Jul 2, 2013
TAMARA wrote:
<quoted text>I know. It is sad that he and who ever are getting away with it. The American people have become to trusting that our government would never waiver from our Constitution.
Here's some more lies for you and no perjury charges.

The US director of national intelligence, James Clapper, has attempted to head off criticism that he lied to Congress over the extent of government surveillance on American citizens, with a letter to senators in which he apologised for giving "erroneous" information.

Two weeks after telling NBC news that he gave the "least untruthful answer possible" at a hearing in March, Clapper wrote to the Senate intelligence committee to correct his response to a question about whether the National Security Agency "collected data on millions of Americans".

But the US senator who asked the question, Ron Wyden, said on Monday that Clapper's office had admitted in private that his answer was wrong, after the March hearing. Yet the intelligence chief only corrected the record on 21 June, when disclosures by the former NSA contractor Edward Snowden prompted weeks of intense public pressure.

"Senator Wyden is deeply troubled by a number of misleading statements senior officials have made about domestic surveillance in the past several years," said his spokesman, Tom Caiazza. "He will continue pushing for an open and honest debate about programs and laws that touch on the personal lives of ordinary Americans."

In the March hearing, Wyden grew frustrated that he could not get a "direct answer" from Clapper about a question the senator said he had been posing to the intelligence agencies in a series of letters for a year: when do US spies need a warrant to surveil Americans' communications?

"What I wanted to see is if you could give me a yes or no answer to the question: does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans," Wyden asked Clapper.

He responded: "No, sir, not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly."

After Snowden's disclosures in the Guardian threw a spotlight on Clapper's statement, he gave an interview to Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC, portions of which were first broadcast on 9 June. In the interview, Clapper explained the apparent inconsistency as a ploy to avoid revealing classified information.

On 18 June, Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, accused Clapper directly of lying, pointed out that lying on oath to Congress was a crime, and questioned whether he could continue in his position.

According to the latest revelation in the Washington Post on Monday, and confirmed by an Obama administration official, Clapper wrote to the Senate intelligence committee on 21 June, when he admitted directly that his answer was wrong. "My response was clearly erroneous – for which I apologize," Clapper said in the letter.

Clapper appeared to row back from his MSNBC statement that his March answer was calculated to avoid betraying confidential information. In the letter, Clapper said that he had misunderstood the question.

But Clapper did not say in the letter why he had taken him until June to correct the mistake. Senator Wyden's spokesman made it clear on Monday that the senator had made attempts to get Clapper to correct the record before the revelations in the Guardian, but was rebuffed. "Senator Wyden had a staff member contact the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on a secure phone line soon after the March hearing to address the inaccurate statement regarding bulk collection on Americans.

"The ODNI acknowledged that the statement was inaccurate but refused to correct the public record when given the opportunity. Senator Wyden's staff informed the ODNI that this was a serious concern.
WarForOil

Rowlett, TX

#44349 Jul 2, 2013
Did you notice how many of the fallen
19 heroes killed in the Arizona Wildfire
were black ?

All of them, and crispy too.

Turns out this elite unit was just
another bunch of not too bright government employees.

Looks like there are more openings for
' The best of the best '.
DoesntMatter

Cushing, OK

#44350 Jul 2, 2013
This is what they do all the time and expect us to believe the things that they spew out of their mouths. But nothing will happen. Almost every person in the top of this administration has perjured themselves and it makes no difference

The most senior US intelligence official told a Senate oversight panel that he “simply didn’t think” of the National Security Agency’s efforts to collect the phone records of millions of Americans when he testified in March that it did “not wittingly” snoop on their communications.

James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, made the comments in a letter to the Senate intelligence committee, released in full for the first time on Tuesday.

Portions of the letter, in which Clapper apologised for giving “clearly erroneous” testimony at a March hearing of the committee, were first reported by the Washington Post on Monday. Clapper had previously said that his answer to the committee was the “least untruthful” one he could publicly provide.

In the full letter, Clapper attempted to explain the false testimony by saying that his recollection failed him.“I simply didn’t think of Section 215 of the Patriot Act,” he wrote to committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (Democrat, California) on 21 June, referring to the legal provision cited to justify the mass collection of Americans’ phone data, first disclosed by the Guardian.

Clapper is under intense pressure from legislators displeased by his March testimony to the Senate intelligence committee’s Ron Wyden (Democrat, Oregon) that the NSA did “not wittingly” collect, as Wyden put it,“any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans.”

In his newly released letter, Clapper told Feinstein that his remarks were “clearly erroneous,” and he issued them because he was thinking instead of a different aspect of surveillance, the internet content collection of persons NSA believes to be foreigners outside of the United States.
DoesntMatter

Cushing, OK

#44351 Jul 2, 2013
Admin. providing additional year before Obamacare mandatory employer + insurer reporting requirements begin http://t.co/UsxWMTlDe7

Disaster
DoesntMatter

Cushing, OK

#44352 Jul 2, 2013
Translation: Delay it until after elections so the people won't know what a train wreck it is and vote in republicans to repeal it. Suckas!
DoesntMatter

Cushing, OK

#44353 Jul 2, 2013
I wonder what all those people who were knocked down to part time jobs bc of Obamacare feel about it?
TAMARA

Edmond, OK

#44354 Jul 2, 2013
DoesntMatter wrote:
Admin. providing additional year before Obamacare mandatory employer + insurer reporting requirements begin http://t.co/UsxWMTlDe7
Disaster
Ok, What are they talking about when they say 'Any employer shared responsibility and it won't kick in until 2015? I thought Under the new healthcare law that employers were to pay the whole amount of the employees health insurance. So
what are they talking about. Or do they know what they are talking about for sure?
WarForOil

Rowlett, TX

#44355 Jul 2, 2013
TAMARA wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought Under the new healthcare law that employers were to pay the whole amount of the employees health insurance.
Do you have magic mushrooms too.
Free lunch for all.

Dream on.

Ignorant Okie.
TAMARA

Edmond, OK

#44357 Jul 2, 2013
WarForOil wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have magic mushrooms too.
Free lunch for all.
Dream on.
Ignorant Okie.
Why the heck don't you try to say something intelligent once in awhile. Oh I know that would be hard for someone that has no idea what that is!

Now You Dream on!
TAMARA

Edmond, OK

#44358 Jul 2, 2013
WarForOil wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have magic mushrooms too.
Free lunch for all.
Dream on.
Ignorant Okie.
Oh by the way maybe whoever is in charge of making sure you don't do or say stupid shit you fire them. They aren't doing a very good job!
WarForOil

Rowlett, TX

#44359 Jul 3, 2013
TAMARA wrote:
<quoted text>
Why the heck don't you try to say something intelligent once in awhile.

I thought Under the new healthcare law that employers were to pay the whole amount of the employees health insurance
How can you complain about stupid when you make
totally ignorant statements like ' I thought it was
going to be free '. You're the worse kind of common
American, totally dumb.

How many times have you and your parents bought the
Brooklyn Bridge ?

You will always be a burden to society. Someone
else has to do your thinking.
TAMARA

Edmond, OK

#44360 Jul 3, 2013
WarForOil wrote:
<quoted text>
How can you complain about stupid when you make
totally ignorant statements like ' I thought it was
going to be free '. You're the worse kind of common
American, totally dumb.
How many times have you and your parents bought the
Brooklyn Bridge ?
You will always be a burden to society. Someone
else has to do your thinking.
It said the employer would be providing the employees with healthcare. But what the employers pay for an employees health ins. would be add onto earned wages when filing federal and state tax returns. There will be no more employer paying a percent of health ins and employee paying a percent of their health ins. For example employer pays 70% and the employees paid 30% but under the new health care law employers pay 100% for employees but what the employer pays is considered earned income for the employee.
Now prove me wrong Smarty pants!
TAMARA

Edmond, OK

#44361 Jul 3, 2013
WarForOil wrote:
<quoted text>
How can you complain about stupid when you make
totally ignorant statements like ' I thought it was
going to be free '. You're the worse kind of common
American, totally dumb.
How many times have you and your parents bought the
Brooklyn Bridge ?
You will always be a burden to society. Someone
else has to do your thinking.
I never said anything would be free! But employers and employees are not sharing nothing when it comes to health ins. premiums. Read the article or shut up!
DoesntMatter

Cushing, OK

#44362 Jul 3, 2013
So... Have you all seen the video of the abortion advocates in Texas chanting Hail Satan at the pro lifers while they were singing Amazing Grace?
DoesntMatter

Cushing, OK

#44363 Jul 3, 2013
TAMARA wrote:
<quoted text>Ok, What are they talking about when they say 'Any employer shared responsibility and it won't kick in until 2015? I thought Under the new healthcare law that employers were to pay the whole amount of the employees health insurance. So
what are they talking about. Or do they know what they are talking about for sure?
I'm not really sure about this Tamara. I'm not under the impression that employers will pay the entire amount.
TAMARA

Edmond, OK

#44364 Jul 3, 2013
DoesntMatter wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not really sure about this Tamara. I'm not under the impression that employers will pay the entire amount.
I thought that is what employers with 50 or more employees were throwing a fit about and cutting employees hours back to part time help. Most employers now will have a health care plan in play and usually it is employers pay 70% and employees pay 30%. Sometimes the percent of what employers pay will be higher or lower and employees pay the difference.
I guess it is something to check on. That's what confused me when that article talked about employers shared responsibility.
WarForOil

Rowlett, TX

#44365 Jul 3, 2013
TAMARA wrote:
<quoted text>
There will be no more employer paying a percent of health ins and employee paying a percent of their health ins. For example employer pays 70% and the employees paid 30% but under the new health care law employers pay 100% for employees but what the employer pays is considered earned income for the employee.
Wow that's complicated. Does your head hurt ?

Nothing has changed except that that you'll
now have more imputed income ( as it should be ).

How can this be so hard for you to understand ?
No wonder you oppose it.
TAMARA

Edmond, OK

#44366 Jul 3, 2013
Affordable Care Act may affect jobs once fully implemented
Some fear that employers may be hesitant to hire if they are near the 50-employee quota
By Lianna Serko March 25, 2013, 8:34 pm
11/12/12:
Rep. Allyson Schwartz leads Affordable Care Act discussion
Just one year away from its full implementation in 2014, the Affordable Care Act continues to raise concerns as many consider the effects it may have on national full-time employment.
One part of the ACA passed in 2010 says that companies with more than 50 employees must provide affordable health care insurance to employees so they do not get fined several thousand dollars per worker.
However, this penalty rule only applies to full-time workers employers wont be fined for not providing health insurance to part-time employees who work 30 hours or less per week.
With these conditions, some have been afraid that employers will avoid hiring if they are near the 50-employee quota, or that employers will begin to hire more part-time instead of full-time workers so they arent penalized. Economists and health care management experts do not all agree on the relative severity of the situation.
Scott Harrington, a professor of health care management at the Wharton School, said that there is reason to believe the ACA will have negative effects on employment in both of the above-mentioned dimensions to some extent.
Employers in the 30- to 40-employee range will think very carefully about hitting that magic number of 50, Harrington said.
The primary effects, he added,would be on sectors and employers that are relatively low-wage and low-skill.
Professor of health care management Mark Pauly agreed. Both Harrington and Pauly also agreed that the debate over the effects of the ACA is also linked to the issue of the national minimum wage.
If you have an employer thats primarily employing low-skill and low-wage workers and not providing health insurance, Harrington said,[and] if they have to start providing health insurance or pay a penalty, it increases their costs of hiring. If there isnt any offset in wage, it makes it much less attractive to hire people.
One view is that employers could reduce wages so as to cover the costs of the required purchase of health insurance. This tactic only works until employers hit the minimum wage, below which they can no longer take money out of wages and put it towards the cost of the insurance.
Another consideration is the labor supply itself. According to Harrington and Pauly, peoples willingness to work is based on and very sensitive to wages and benefits. If wages are reduced as employers purchase their employees health insurance, workers might come to see a job as less attractive overall.
Workers might pull out of the labor market if less cash and more insurance isnt worth it to them, Pauly said.Its the workers valuation of health insurance thats really key here.
Another way to look at the situation, Pauly added, is that when health reform kicks in, there will be a lot more people with health insurance than before around 25 million more people will have insurance. The more people that have health insurance, the more people will use health care services meaning that the ACA might actually have a positive effect in the creation of more jobs in the health care industry.
While Harrington believes the ACA will definitely have some effect on employment and Pauly thinks it probably will, professor of economics Hanming Fang believes that the ACA will have little overall effect on American employment.
TAMARA

Edmond, OK

#44367 Jul 3, 2013
On the one hand, there might be some incentives for firms whose intended size was 50 prior to the ACA to cutback some hiring so as to stay below the threshold of 50, Fang said in an email.On the other hand, it can increase the ability of small firms to hire more workers because now workers in these small firms can buy affordable health insurance from the exchanges.
He added that as the workforce becomes healthier and more productive because of the additional coverage, hiring will increase. However, Fang concluded that the several margins of adjustment mentioned more or less cancel out.
While experts have not yet reached a consensus on the effects the ACA will have on U.S. employment, Pauly claimed that the policy is not as bad as critics make it out to be.

When it says "companies with more than 50 employees must provide affordable healthcare insurance to employees so they do not get fined several thousands dollars per worker."
I am taking it that the employer is paying for the employees healthcare insurance.
TAMARA

Edmond, OK

#44368 Jul 3, 2013
WarForOil wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow that's complicated. Does your head hurt ?
Nothing has changed except that that you'll
now have more imputed income ( as it should be ).
How can this be so hard for you to understand ?
No wonder you oppose it.
Show me proof that the employer is not paying for his 50 or more employees health care insurance.

I know you really don't want to tax your brain to hard!

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.

Bartlesville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Majority of school districts say teacher hiring... Sep 19 david 15
walmart claims closing Sep 17 Vanador 6
The Hypocritical Voice of the Martyrs VOM (Sep '12) Sep 3 Kenny49 15
Did You Know Your Church is Not the Real Church... (Nov '16) Sep 2 Lutke Lover 2
This sounds like a bad town. Is Barltesville, f... (Jul '10) Aug '17 sad 25
Rancher ( E.C. Mullendore) (Jun '08) Aug '17 Glenda 143
What happened to the Mullendore Murder Case (Aug '08) Jul '17 Slow Reader 1,418

Bartlesville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Bartlesville Mortgages