Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#73543 Mar 23, 2013
spy wrote:
<quoted text>Meet me over at the other site, the gay one we hang at.
If I'm not there is 5 minutes, you go ahead and start without me, Ok?

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#73544 Mar 23, 2013
"Obama To Designate New National Park In MD. Honoring Harriet Tubman."

Click here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-...

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#73545 Mar 23, 2013
SexySassySenior wrote:
"Why I Am No Longer A Republican."
Chttp://news.yahoo.com/why-am- no-longer-republican-062500099 .htmllick here:
I don't know why this didn't show up as a good Link, but let's try it again.

Click here:
http://theweek.com/article/index/241740/why-i...
uranidiot

Palestine, TX

#73546 Mar 23, 2013
Marines do not like you. They hate what you stand for. Marines believe in God. You do not.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#73547 Mar 23, 2013
SexySassySenior wrote:
"Obama To Designate New National Park In MD. Honoring Harriet Tubman."

Click here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-...
Go to bed troll master. Spy has his nylons on and wants you to spank his bottom.
Dunlapian

Dunlap, TN

#73548 Mar 23, 2013
SexySassySenior wrote:
i can't believe that you TEApublicans can't find something about this tragedy to blame on Obama, Biden , or Harry Reid...or are you waiting for Fox Fake News to tell you why it was all their fault?
i mean , isn't that what you did about the other Marine tragedy that happened this week?
----------
"3 Dead, Including Suspect, In Marine Base Shooting."
Click here:
http://news.yahoo.com/3-dead-including-suspec...
So far from the intel I'm getting Fox News so far has not given out Marching Orders to the TeaBaggers(not the sex act but the act of sending tea bags to Washington D.C. 09').

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#73549 Mar 23, 2013
Dunlapian wrote:
<quoted text>So far from the intel I'm getting Fox News so far has not given out Marching Orders to the TeaBaggers(not the sex act but the act of sending tea bags to Washington D.C. 09').
Today's "n" for you. It appears you utilized many last evenings dear. Use this one sparingly. Good day Sir.

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#73550 Mar 23, 2013
Dunlapian wrote:
<quoted text>So far from the intel I'm getting Fox News so far has not given out Marching Orders to the TeaBaggers(not the sex act but the act of sending tea bags to Washington D.C. 09').
HMMMMM, So far from the intel All the rest of us are getting MSNBC, CBS, and the Washington Post "HAVE" given out marching orders to the "Tea-baggers" - Those fond of the signature homosexual act of perversion and obscenity, not the patriots who send tea to the corrupt mob in Washington D.C.!
Dunlapian

Dunlap, TN

#73551 Mar 23, 2013
Pete wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought of you as being a little more moderate Dunlapian. Cost of Medicare in 2011 -$565 Billion. Cost of both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars in 2011 -$159 Billion. Which one do you think will bankrupt us first? Don't get me wrong, we need medicare. But we also need to reign in the costs. Also, sometimes war is inevitable. Maybe Iraq is not a good example, but other wars certainly were.
Pete, the war in Iraq is history as of Dec. 2011......so the cost of that war "itself" is now "$0.". So next we have the Afghanistan War, which I believe now that we have completed why we were over there, President Obama should end it.

In our life time we will always be spending for both wars, and Vietnam the list goes on, ect. So I would say the cost of war is a "constant" drain on the taxpayers, not to mention those that will forever have their life ruined.

Now to our common ground, I do agree that we need to reign in the cost of Medicare. Fraud is really draining us, and from what I understand every dollar we spend on fraud we get back $8.

So Pete, I believe if we stop going to war so often(Iraq and Vietnam) and we go after fraud in Medicare, we the taxpayers will get some relief.
Overtaxed

Thorn Hill, TN

#73552 Mar 23, 2013
Unreal wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, they really haven't been doing me any favors :) In your information, did you see anything that says the premiums can't be over 9.5% of the employeesí wages? I kept this job because we have a small business, and a pre-existing condition, but when I changed to part-time, I also started paying most the premiums, but I still had to do it because of not being insurable elsewhere. I believe this company is going to also be doing a major overhaul to their full time benefits though because I am paid substantially above minimum wage, and I know that the premiums for the full time employees making lower wages will not be below 9.5% if this is the law (this was in the info I received from the company leadership team).
While change always has some anxiety, I am actually hopeful and optimistic. I do think that being able to finally get our insurance independently will be a good thing and probably less expensive as a small business in the long run.
I do know what you mean. Thanks again.
The 9.5% rule is the baseline above which an employee can get a tax credit for part of their contribution to the plan, IF their income is below 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. Nothing in the ACA requires employers to pay all but 9.5% of their employee's insurance premiums. Someone in that leadership team is mistaken, or was given some false information.
Dunlapian

Dunlap, TN

#73553 Mar 23, 2013
ORIGINAL WILLARD wrote:
<quoted text>
HMMMMM, So far from the intel All the rest of us are getting MSNBC, CBS, and the Washington Post "HAVE" given out marching orders to the "Tea-baggers" - Those fond of the signature homosexual act of perversion and obscenity, not the patriots who send tea to the corrupt mob in Washington D.C.!
Now Willard, you promised me that you would not respond to my post.
Tsk,tsk,tsk, "Thy shall not lie".........oh yeah for you that only happens on Sunday for about an hour with your lil' congregation.
Overtaxed

Thorn Hill, TN

#73554 Mar 23, 2013
Honestly wrote:
<quoted text>
they should hire you,, you too would be a good mouth piece for Obama care.
Did you find anything that I posted substantially incorrect ? If so, feel free to let me know. Otherwise, what is your problem ?
Dunlapian

Dunlap, TN

#73555 Mar 23, 2013
Overtaxed wrote:
<quoted text> The 9.5% rule is the baseline above which an employee can get a tax credit for part of their contribution to the plan, IF their income is below 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. Nothing in the ACA requires employers to pay all but 9.5% of their employee's insurance premiums. Someone in that leadership team is mistaken, or was given some false information.
OT, I also found out with the ACA, when you go to the "Market Place" and choose a provider at the end of the year, you rate your provider, and if that provider ends up with negative ratings overall the Feds will start cutting their funding for that provider.
As of right now I have good insurance, low premiums but I think things will change.....so I have to keep connected to what is going on.

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#73556 Mar 23, 2013
ORIGINAL WILLARD wrote:
<quoted text>HMMMMM, So far from the intel All the rest of us are getting MSNBC, CBS, and the Washington Post "HAVE" given out marching orders to the "Tea-baggers" - Those fond of the signature homosexual act of perversion and obscenity, not the patriots who send tea to the corrupt mob in Washington D.C.!
Good morning to you. Have a wonderful day my friend.
Overtaxed

Thorn Hill, TN

#73557 Mar 23, 2013
Overtaxed wrote:
<quoted text> The 9.5% rule is the baseline above which an employee can get a tax credit for part of their contribution to the plan, IF their income is below 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. Nothing in the ACA requires employers to pay all but 9.5% of their employee's insurance premiums. Someone in that leadership team is mistaken, or was given some false information.
I should have included this as well...the ACA was not designed to end employee based health coverage, but to increase it when possible. The idea is to get more employers to provide it, not less, and applying the 9.5% rule as your company is would have the opposite effect. Part time help do not come under the ACA umbrella of rules, anyway.
Timbuk2

Boca Raton, FL

#73558 Mar 23, 2013
Pete wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's hope this plan doesn't turn out to be anything like Social Security or Medicare. If it does, the U.S. will be flat broke in a short amount of time.
C'mon. Pete. You KNOW that's what's going to happen. The original Social Security bears little resemblance to today's SS.

The Social Security Act was signed into law by President Roosevelt on August 14, 1935. In addition to several provisions for general welfare, the new Act created a social insurance program designed to pay retired workers age 65 or older a continuing income after retirement. Most women and minorities were excluded from the benefits of Social Security. Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers. The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently. In its early days, these exclusions exempted nearly half of the working population from benefiting from Social Security.

From 1937 until 1940, Social Security paid benefits in the form of a single, lump-sum payment. The purpose of these one-time payments was to provide some "payback" to those people who contributed to the program but would not participate long enough to be vested for monthly benefits.

In 1939, Social Security was modified to add benefits to the spouse or minor children of a retired worker. It also added a survivorís benefit, paid to the family in the event of the premature death of a covered worker.

The payment of monthly benefits was accelerated to begin in 1940 rather than 1942. Interestingly, the first monthly retirement check was issued to an individual who had paid a total of $22.54 into the system and received $22,000 in benefits over her lifetime!

The next significant change to the SSA occurred in 1950, when the first cost of living adjustment (COLA) was added the program.

In 1961, the retirement age for men was reduced to 62, with a reduced monthly benefit for those choosing to retire early. Several major changes to Social Security occurred with the 1972 amendment: automatic COLAs were instituted, a minimum monthly benefit was established, monthly benefits were significantly increased to those individuals waiting until age 65 to retire, and a system for automatic increases in the amount of earnings subject to Social Security taxation was developed.

So now we have a system that is paid for by today's workers, since the "lockbox" is now fiction, and there are more people retiring and living longer than we have young workers. And today's workers are lazier, earn far less, are less motivated, than the worker of yesteryear. Add to that drugs, free stuff paid for by the government, and government's insatiable thirst for providing services to the populace, and you have an unsustainable system.

And now we've put it in charge of one seventh of the economy.

The real fraud is that we've convinced a huge portion of our population that the rich can afford to pay for all of this.

We can hope that this won't end up like Social Security, but history shows that it will.

And our populace has changed from a nations of doers to a nation of takers. Perhaps we can "hope" that the takers will change into doers?

Overtaxed

Thorn Hill, TN

#73559 Mar 23, 2013
Pete wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the summary OT. I think it is pretty accurate. However, what this is going to do in my opinion is put a lot of small businesses who are struggling to survive into the realm of unprofitability. This will lead to more job losses and less tax revenues. So basically what we are doing to some degree is providing insurance at the cost of some small to medium businesses and some job losses. This isn't a good plan in my opinion. I also suspect this plan will go through several changes before it gets implemented. For example, today the medical device tax was eliminated by a bi-partisan vote. I suspect there will be more bi-partisan changes since it is pretty obvious this plan is going to be an economy killer.
The final bill (now law) on Obamacare had both carrots and sticks regarding employer funded health insurance "Pete", and I have a copy of the final rules on the sticks part...but not the carrot part yet. I have been told the rules are still being written regarding the tax incentives in the law for those of us who employ people. Depending on how the final rules shake out...this might hurt small business, or it might not. My tax professional tells me it is possible that the law will help me, even though I do not employ anywhere near the 50 person threshold. My congressman knows less about this than I do so...I guess we will just have to wait and see.
Overtaxed

Thorn Hill, TN

#73560 Mar 23, 2013
Timbuk2 wrote:
<quoted text>
C'mon. Pete. You KNOW that's what's going to happen. The original Social Security bears little resemblance to today's SS.
The Social Security Act was signed into law by President Roosevelt on August 14, 1935. In addition to several provisions for general welfare, the new Act created a social insurance program designed to pay retired workers age 65 or older a continuing income after retirement. Most women and minorities were excluded from the benefits of Social Security. Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers. The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently. In its early days, these exclusions exempted nearly half of the working population from benefiting from Social Security.
From 1937 until 1940, Social Security paid benefits in the form of a single, lump-sum payment. The purpose of these one-time payments was to provide some "payback" to those people who contributed to the program but would not participate long enough to be vested for monthly benefits.
In 1939, Social Security was modified to add benefits to the spouse or minor children of a retired worker. It also added a survivorís benefit, paid to the family in the event of the premature death of a covered worker.
The payment of monthly benefits was accelerated to begin in 1940 rather than 1942. Interestingly, the first monthly retirement check was issued to an individual who had paid a total of $22.54 into the system and received $22,000 in benefits over her lifetime!
The next significant change to the SSA occurred in 1950, when the first cost of living adjustment (COLA) was added the program.
In 1961, the retirement age for men was reduced to 62, with a reduced monthly benefit for those choosing to retire early. Several major changes to Social Security occurred with the 1972 amendment: automatic COLAs were instituted, a minimum monthly benefit was established, monthly benefits were significantly increased to those individuals waiting until age 65 to retire, and a system for automatic increases in the amount of earnings subject to Social Security taxation was developed.
So now we have a system that is paid for by today's workers, since the "lockbox" is now fiction, and there are more people retiring and living longer than we have young workers. And today's workers are lazier, earn far less, are less motivated, than the worker of yesteryear. Add to that drugs, free stuff paid for by the government, and government's insatiable thirst for providing services to the populace, and you have an unsustainable system.
And now we've put it in charge of one seventh of the economy.
The real fraud is that we've convinced a huge portion of our population that the rich can afford to pay for all of this.
We can hope that this won't end up like Social Security, but history shows that it will.
And our populace has changed from a nations of doers to a nation of takers. Perhaps we can "hope" that the takers will change into doers?
Hey "Timbuck", as usual, I don't agree with much of anything you post....but I am happy to have you back anyway ! Chuckles !!
Pete

Johnson City, TN

#73561 Mar 23, 2013
Overtaxed wrote:
<quoted text> The final bill (now law) on Obamacare had both carrots and sticks regarding employer funded health insurance "Pete", and I have a copy of the final rules on the sticks part...but not the carrot part yet. I have been told the rules are still being written regarding the tax incentives in the law for those of us who employ people. Depending on how the final rules shake out...this might hurt small business, or it might not. My tax professional tells me it is possible that the law will help me, even though I do not employ anywhere near the 50 person threshold. My congressman knows less about this than I do so...I guess we will just have to wait and see.
My accountant and my insurance broker both say it actually helps those businesses with less than 25 employees. However, they both said it hurts businesses of my size. That is just my luck :)

Thanks for all your info!
Unreal

Dandridge, TN

#73562 Mar 23, 2013
Overtaxed wrote:
<quoted text> I should have included this as well...the ACA was not designed to end employee based health coverage, but to increase it when possible. The idea is to get more employers to provide it, not less, and applying the 9.5% rule as your company is would have the opposite effect. Part time help do not come under the ACA umbrella of rules, anyway.
It was the first I had heard about the 9.5% rule, and I did find it hard to believe. I also thought it gave them bigger problems than how to eliminate benefits for the PT and PRN employees. It will still be interesting to see what their policy will look like at the end of the year. Since I am accustomed to paying the premiums for family coverage out of pocket anyway, hopefully I will find more flexibility and a policy better suited to our needs. Thanks.

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.

Greeneville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Harold Lamb anybody know him? 31 min The Wolf 4
Garrett Campbell 33 min Everyone 15
Is every woman a drug addict? 36 min slut Attractor 13
YES another bad driver! 36 min Dr Wu 2
Greeneville or Signal Mtn footbsll game tonight 44 min Football Star 1
Sharia law is a damnation folks 1 hr Country boy 3
to u 2 hr cousin 6
lawsuit against county schools 3 hr willard 11
Greene County Schools 4 hr willard 117
***** last post wins ***** 12 hr Trunketeer 62
Mayor Daniels tries to pull Fast one 16 hr Janet 10
Body found in Greeneville creek 18 hr Fishing Man 7
Greeneville Dating
Find my Match

Greeneville Jobs

Greeneville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Greeneville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Greeneville

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]