Since: Jun 08

Not Waynesboro or Hagerstown

#50563 Jul 1, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that the ACA doesn't go far enough and single-payer is the best option, having shown success everywhere it's implemented.
But the ACA is the best compromise that was possible in our current political environment. There are problems that need to be addressed. Unfortunately, the GOP is using those problems to condemn the whole effort and refusing to fix them in an attempt to undermine the ACA.
But there are, in fact, many cost-control measures in the law.
From the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation:
How does the ACA control health care costs?
http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/...
Tort reform #1

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50564 Jul 1, 2013
GenPatton wrote:
<quoted text>
Tort reform #1
Not much objective evidence tort reform would work, but the ACA includes research for pilot projects to see if it would help.
truth

Erie, PA

#50565 Jul 1, 2013
Single-payer, all the rest sucks.
John

Poland

#50567 Jul 1, 2013
http://articlesdays.com/unemployment-rate

very good website for all statistic if somebody needs

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50570 Jul 1, 2013
The BHO Legacy wrote:
IRS: Liberal groups got less scrutiny than Tea Party
The Internal Revenue Service did flag tax-exempt applications from liberal groups for extra attention, but they did not receive the same scrutiny as did those from Tea Party groups, according to the inspector general who investigated the IRS targeting.
The word "progressive" was included on a "be on the look out" list, or BOLO list, used by IRS agents in the agency's Cincinnati field office, Russell George said in a June 26 letter to Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. Those lists were used to determine which groups' application should be studied more carefully.
Unlike the way Tea Party applications were handled, George wrote, there were no "instructions on how to refer cases that met" the progressive criteria. "We found no indication … that 'progressives' was a term used to refer cases for scrutiny for political campaign intervention." The IRS was trying to determine whether the groups did too much political activity to qualify for the non-profit status reserved for predominantly "social welfare" groups.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2...
Yes, you already posted this.

Any "information" about this IRS bullshit with IG George as the source has already been thoroughly discredited. The man likely committed perjury before Congress. He is simply not a reliable witness.

It has come out that the Inspector General’s report on the IRS was deliberately limited to only discussing Tea Party groups, and the IG says it was Congressional Republicans who ordered this limitation.

In other words, the whole “scandal” was ginned up from the start. It’s not just that the IRS was targeting progressive groups also, but that the entire IG report was deliberately skewed, with undisclosed parameters, to create the false impression that Tea Party groups were being singled out.

Now the IG and the Republicans are pointing the finger at each other, and the only scandal concerns the investigation itself.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50571 Jul 1, 2013
The BHO Legacy wrote:
The bill with the surprise inside: The IRS is now your doctor, sort of
While promoting Obamacare, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi encouraged Americans to think of it as a kind of Christmas present.“We have to pass the (health care) bill so that you can find out what is in it,” she told the National Association of Counties in March 2010, days before President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act.
Now we know that the surprise inside Obamacare includes an historic expansion of the IRS, arguably the most hated of federal agencies.
That role was no accident: When Obamacare eventually passed constitutional muster one year ago, it was only because, conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts argued, the Affordable Care Act relies on Congress’ power to tax.
http://watchdog.org/92595/the-bill-with-the-s...
LOL! You might be better off NOT posting the link to the garbage you post. Any fair-minded, rational person who reads this particular link will recognize it for what it is - a steaming pile of wingnut propaganda filled with half-truths and outright lies.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50572 Jul 1, 2013
Pew: Nonprofit journalism doesn’t mean ideology-free

Nonprofit news orgs aren’t all ProPublicas; many are driven by political interests and aren’t transparent about their funding, a Pew analysis finds.

Pew had the expected nice things to say about the usual nonprofit rock stars, like ProPublica, the Texas Tribune, MinnPost, and California Watch. They’re transparent about their funding sources, which are numerous; their doesn’t skew too far in one political direction; they produce a lot of journalism, compared to their nonprofit peers.

But the major national networks of state politics sites — the conservative Watchdog.org sites and the liberal American Independent News Network — don’t reveal much about who’s paying their bills, and their work skews clearly in one direction, both in the topics they cover and the content of individual stories.

http://www.niemanlab.org/2011/07/pew-nonprofi...

----------

Watchdog! LMAO!

By posting from overtly partisan, far-right sources, you reveal that you are not serious about the truth.

You prove that your agenda isn't honest and that your visceral hatred for the President is driving you to mindlessly attack him, regardless of the facts or reality.

You're a mendacious partisan hack, my friend. You prove it every day.
America deserves to fail

Lehighton, PA

#50573 Jul 1, 2013
... period.
typical neocon

Hazleton, PA

#50574 Jul 1, 2013
Anybody ever spank it to Corbett?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50576 Jul 1, 2013
The BHO Legacy wrote:
Obamacare Shocker: Premiums Could Double
This morning’s Wall Street Journal published its own analysis of premiums under Obamacare, and its conclusions will prompt shock—rate shock—among those who need to buy health insurance under the law’s new exchanges next year:
* Healthy consumers could see insurance rates double or even triple when they look for individual coverage under the federal health law later this year, while the premiums paid by sicker people are set to become more affordable, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of coverage to be sold on the law’s new exchanges. The exchanges, the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s health-care law, look likely to offer few if any of the cut-rate policies that healthy people can now buy, according to the Journal’s analysis.
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/07/01/obamacare...
Anybody who is surprised by this hasn't been paying attention.

When healthy people choose not to buy insurance or to buy inadequate insurance, then get sick or have an accident that racks up tens of thousands of dollars in care, the rest of us pay for their care. That's already happening.

Utilizing the conservative principle of making people take responsibly for themselves, the ACA includes the Republican idea of an individual mandate.

When people are required to take responsibility for themselves and buy adequate insurance, guess what? Their costs are going to go up. Big surprise.

BTW - when Heritage hired a white supremacist to write a distorted and dishonest analysis of immigration reform, whatever tiny shred of credibility they had left was erased. Quoting proven liars only embarrasses yourself. LOL!
risky business

West Mifflin, PA

#50577 Jul 1, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Anybody who is surprised by this hasn't been paying attention.
When healthy people choose not to buy insurance or to buy inadequate insurance, then get sick or have an accident that racks up tens of thousands of dollars in care, the rest of us pay for their care. That's already happening.
Utilizing the conservative principle of making people take responsibly for themselves, the ACA includes the Republican idea of an individual mandate.
When people are required to take responsibility for themselves and buy adequate insurance, guess what? Their costs are going to go up. Big surprise.
BTW - when Heritage hired a white supremacist to write a distorted and dishonest analysis of immigration reform, whatever tiny shred of credibility they had left was erased. Quoting proven liars only embarrasses yourself. LOL!
So you agree that because of obamacare insurance rates will go up? Why not just say that and be done with it..... YES the rates will go up and my employer isnt happy about it,who pays for 90% of my healthcare ,I pay the 10 %. my sister who is a school teacher heard that their school district will have to dish out another 150.00 a month for each school employee because of obamacare. Spin it however you want too, the lazy welfare trash still wont pay for healthcare. So we have to support the ones that pay nothing??? LOL! Great plan!!! Obamacare will drive the businesses out of this country that cant afford to give their employees healthcare.. LOL!
LaughingAtYou

Chicago, IL

#50578 Jul 1, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
...When you can't refute the facts, your only resort is to malign the source. Just sayin...
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
By posting from overtly partisan, far-right sources, you reveal that you are not serious about the truth....
Obviously you can't dispute the facts so you malign the sources. Shame on you.

LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50579 Jul 2, 2013
LaughingAtYou wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Obviously you can't dispute the facts so you malign the sources. Shame on you.
LOL!
I disputed the "facts" AND the source.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50580 Jul 2, 2013
risky business wrote:
<quoted text>So you agree that because of obamacare insurance rates will go up? Why not just say that and be done with it..... YES the rates will go up and my employer isnt happy about it,who pays for 90% of my healthcare ,I pay the 10 %. my sister who is a school teacher heard that their school district will have to dish out another 150.00 a month for each school employee because of obamacare. Spin it however you want too, the lazy welfare trash still wont pay for healthcare. So we have to support the ones that pay nothing??? LOL! Great plan!!! Obamacare will drive the businesses out of this country that cant afford to give their employees healthcare.. LOL!
Rates will go up for SOME people. Overall the ACA will cost Americans less and reduce the deficit.

And you are ALREADY supporting those who pay nothing. People who don't take responsibility and buy health insurance cost the rest of us about $50 billion a year.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50582 Jul 2, 2013
The BHO Legacy wrote:
The Sprawling, Dimming Age of Obama
In Barack Obama, America elected a chief executive whose Department of Justice has repeatedly targeted the press, whose Internal Revenue Service has gone gunning for conservatives, and whose government has elevated secrecy into a cardinal virtue. The Obama administration’s data grab is not just about national security, or Edward Snowden. It is also an epilogue befitting a candidate who delivered his 2008 convention acceptance speech in front of a temple façade dedicated to himself, and whose faith in government and the state is at the center of his presidency.
Under the Obama Rules, the unauthorized dissemination of non-classified government information is now “tantamount to aiding the enemies of the United States.” Think Nixonism without the sweaty five o’clock shadow; Cheneyism without the dyspepsia, armed with a jump shot instead of a shotgun.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06...
Why is it when wingnuts want to describe how truly awful Obama is they have to compare him to a Republican? LOL!

Comparisons of current legal NSA actions (which have been regulated by an informed Congress and cleared by the courts) to Nixon's criminal behavior are completely irrational. Anyone who would make such a comparison is either completely out of touch with reality or a blind partisan telling conscious lies.
ACA

West Mifflin, PA

#50583 Jul 2, 2013
In a policy debate, it can be helpful to clarify what each side's claims are. Doing so makes it easier to see whose predictions are ultimately borne out by reality, or at least which parts of divergent expectations prove most accurate. It also makes it harder for people to conveniently claim after the fact that what is occurring was what they were predicting all along.

We're seeing that already from supporters of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. At first, their assertion was that the law would make health care, well, as the name implies, more affordable. Insurance premiums were supposed to come down, and overall expenditures on medical treatment were supposed to decline as people gained access to "preventive" services.

Over time, as rubber has met road and more evidence has pointed toward an increase rather than a decrease in health care costs, Obamacare proponents have quietly begun a major bait and switch. Once certain the law would lead to across-the-board reductions in insurance premiums ("We estimate we can cut the average family's premium by about $2,500 per year," quoth then Senator Barack Obama), today they argue that the purpose of the law was never to make health insurance cheaper for everyone.

Instead, they say, the ACA was meant to broaden the swath of Americans who could access health care by prohibiting insurance companies from turning away or charging more to people who are sick. And if some people have to pay more than they otherwise would, it's OK, because they'll also be getting more in the form of benefits they don't want!

Needless to say, ACA opponents' concerns have not been assuaged by this seventh-inning copout. Yet there's still plenty of time for either side to be proven wrong. Many key pieces of the legislation won't go into effect until the beginning of 2014, and even then, prices could take time to settle into their new equilibria. A fair assessment will be the one we can only make two or three or four years down the road, after the policies enacted have had the chance to bring about– or not– the outcomes promised by their supporters.

Until then, I think it worth stating plainly what Obamacare opponents like myself actually see coming. This establishes a fair yard stick for measuring the correctness of our predictions and makes it harder for the other side to decide on our behalves what we "really thought would happen." (It also gives them a petard with which to hoist us if we turn out to be wrong.)

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50584 Jul 2, 2013
ACA wrote:
In a policy debate, it can be helpful to clarify what each side's claims are. Doing so makes it easier to see whose predictions are ultimately borne out by reality, or at least which parts of divergent expectations prove most accurate. It also makes it harder for people to conveniently claim after the fact that what is occurring was what they were predicting all along.
We're seeing that already from supporters of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. At first, their assertion was that the law would make health care, well, as the name implies, more affordable. Insurance premiums were supposed to come down, and overall expenditures on medical treatment were supposed to decline as people gained access to "preventive" services.
Over time, as rubber has met road and more evidence has pointed toward an increase rather than a decrease in health care costs, Obamacare proponents have quietly begun a major bait and switch. Once certain the law would lead to across-the-board reductions in insurance premiums ("We estimate we can cut the average family's premium by about $2,500 per year," quoth then Senator Barack Obama), today they argue that the purpose of the law was never to make health insurance cheaper for everyone.
Instead, they say, the ACA was meant to broaden the swath of Americans who could access health care by prohibiting insurance companies from turning away or charging more to people who are sick. And if some people have to pay more than they otherwise would, it's OK, because they'll also be getting more in the form of benefits they don't want!
Needless to say, ACA opponents' concerns have not been assuaged by this seventh-inning copout. Yet there's still plenty of time for either side to be proven wrong. Many key pieces of the legislation won't go into effect until the beginning of 2014, and even then, prices could take time to settle into their new equilibria. A fair assessment will be the one we can only make two or three or four years down the road, after the policies enacted have had the chance to bring about– or not– the outcomes promised by their supporters.
Until then, I think it worth stating plainly what Obamacare opponents like myself actually see coming. This establishes a fair yard stick for measuring the correctness of our predictions and makes it harder for the other side to decide on our behalves what we "really thought would happen." (It also gives them a petard with which to hoist us if we turn out to be wrong.)
Of course as Republicans attempt to undermine the ACA a thousand different ways (denying funding to key components, refusing to implement Medicare initiatives, undermine enforcement efforts, spreading objectively false propaganda about the law, etc.) the outcomes become more and more compromised.

When the law was passed, Democrats acknowledged that there were lots of flaws in the law as a result of attempts to compromise with opponents. A reasonable Congress would address those individual flaws to make the law a good as possible. But, since we don't have a reasonable Congress, what has happened instead is that the GOP has exploited and exacerbated those flaws to undermine the law.

As a result, whatever attempts at measuring the law's success will be compromised by GOP sabotage. Several years down the road, every failure will be pointed to as proof opponents were right all along, when in fact they were the ones who caused those failures.

Since: Jun 08

Not Waynesboro or Hagerstown

#50585 Jul 2, 2013
How could they admit flaws on a bill that they never read?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#50586 Jul 2, 2013
GenPatton wrote:
How could they admit flaws on a bill that they never read?
It was actually Justice Scalia who said he couldn't be bothered to read the law, not Democrats.

----------

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?(Laughter.) And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?
ACA

West Mifflin, PA

#50588 Jul 2, 2013
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
It was actually Justice Scalia who said he couldn't be bothered to read the law, not Democrats.
----------
JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?(Laughter.) And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks? Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?
And he voted against it..whats your point? Was he speaking for everyone or just making a general statement? It's the same in congress when BIG bills are put to vote some thousands of pages long, each and everyone doesnt read all the crap. They have lawyers and accountants and people working before them that are suppose to read through all the garbage. The Supreme court judges are no different. Dont blame one judge ,blame the system on both sides.

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.

Morgantown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
New Facebook Group: Former Ebay Sellers (Feb '14) Oct 11 NetWatch 2
Mountain lion in Honey Brook Oct 7 Bikerchick 1
Prostitution in Honey Brook? (Aug '10) Sep 23 Heather 26
'Puppy Mill' Crackdown with Arrest Made (Jan '07) Sep '14 Lovaldgs 268
Dunkin Donuts in Morgantown (Aug '11) Sep '14 Done with Dunkin 16
Smaller suburbs like Honey Brook work to revita... Sep '14 Brooker Wood 1
Churchtown Pa Jul '14 Jen 2
Morgantown Dating
Find my Match

Morgantown Jobs

Morgantown People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Morgantown News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Morgantown

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]