What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?
- Thread starter Ulaven_Demorte
- Start date
- Status
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
NIGGER CURRY will list 261 pts why this cartoon is incoorect
The cartoon is outright lying. The CBO didn't say that 7 million people will lose their health insurance at all. In fact they're still saying that ~35 million net people will gain insurance.
They said that about 7 million people will end up switching from one health insurance company to another. But the RW propaganda factory took that comment and distorted it to say that 7 million net people will lose their coverage entirely due to Obamacare.
The thing is, there are some very valid criticisms of the ACA but conservatives don't want to talk about them. Instead they lie and distort in order to rally their base that's so easily manipulated by fear.
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
jeninflorida
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2003
- Posts
- 22,463
so you mean the obama flowers that are too lazy to get a job will lose their health insurance?
long live the socialism! free is a God given right
U
unregistered
Guest
jeninflorida
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2003
- Posts
- 22,463
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
CBO also projects that the unemployment rate will fall to 5.2 percent by 2023 and that inflation and interest rates will stay at about their 2018 levels throughout the 2019–2023 period.
Gee, we shuld bring Bush back, that's where it was under him
Gee, we shuld bring Bush back, that's where it was under him
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
NY Times Notices Obama Tax Hikes Are Crushing Americans, Fails to Mention Obama
obamalaughing3
This should be the first in a series. Wait until these poor bastards start have to paying $20,000 a family to start for their free ObamaCare. Still, curiously missing from this story is the name of the man responsible for this massive tax hike.
Like millions of other Americans, they are feeling the bite from the sharp increase in payroll taxes that took effect at the beginning of January. There are growing signs that the broader economy is suffering, too.
Chain-store sales have weakened over the course of the month. And two surveys released last week suggested that consumer confidence was eroding, especially among lower-income Americans.
While these data points are preliminary — more detailed statistics on retail sales and other trends will not be available until later this month — at street level, the pain from the expiration of a two-percentage-point break in Social Security taxes in 2011 and 2012 is plain to see.
“You got to stretch what you got,” said Mr. Phillips, 51, a front-desk clerk and maintenance man for a nonprofit housing group who earned $22,000 last year. “That little $20 or $30 affects you, especially if you’re just making enough money to stay above water.” So he has taken to juggling bills, skipping a payment on one this month and another next month.
“I’m playing catch-up each month,” he said. “You go to the supermarket and you can’t spend what you used to.”
Jack Andrews has it slightly better than Mr. Phillips. He earns a bit more than $40,000 a year manufacturing ceramics in a local factory, but because his wife, Cindy, is disabled, he is the sole breadwinner. Something had to give now that he is earning about $800 less a year, or $66 a month, and it was the couple’s monthly night out.
“It’s just gotten out of reach,” Mr. Andrews said.
But hey, at least they’re paying their fair share now and those evil “rich” people are getting socked.
Of course, taxes are going up on wealthier Americans, too, with a rise in marginal rates on income above $400,000 for individuals and higher taxes on capital gains and dividends. But millions of individual decisions by poorer Americans in Medford, Augusta, Harlem and elsewhere are quickly adding up.
Funny how Obama didn’t mention any of this during the campaign, huh? Another casualty? Obama voters are now eating less healthy.
Ms. Price, 20, whose annual income is $15,000 to $16,000, prefers shopping at Whole Foods, the upscale supermarket chain, which is healthier but more expensive. But since the payroll tax went up, she has been going more often to Publix and Walmart.
“The food that has a lot of fat and food coloring is cheaper,” she said. “It’s a lot more expensive to eat healthier. But now I’m actually looking at the price tag on things rather than grabbing them.”
obamalaughing3
This should be the first in a series. Wait until these poor bastards start have to paying $20,000 a family to start for their free ObamaCare. Still, curiously missing from this story is the name of the man responsible for this massive tax hike.
Like millions of other Americans, they are feeling the bite from the sharp increase in payroll taxes that took effect at the beginning of January. There are growing signs that the broader economy is suffering, too.
Chain-store sales have weakened over the course of the month. And two surveys released last week suggested that consumer confidence was eroding, especially among lower-income Americans.
While these data points are preliminary — more detailed statistics on retail sales and other trends will not be available until later this month — at street level, the pain from the expiration of a two-percentage-point break in Social Security taxes in 2011 and 2012 is plain to see.
“You got to stretch what you got,” said Mr. Phillips, 51, a front-desk clerk and maintenance man for a nonprofit housing group who earned $22,000 last year. “That little $20 or $30 affects you, especially if you’re just making enough money to stay above water.” So he has taken to juggling bills, skipping a payment on one this month and another next month.
“I’m playing catch-up each month,” he said. “You go to the supermarket and you can’t spend what you used to.”
Jack Andrews has it slightly better than Mr. Phillips. He earns a bit more than $40,000 a year manufacturing ceramics in a local factory, but because his wife, Cindy, is disabled, he is the sole breadwinner. Something had to give now that he is earning about $800 less a year, or $66 a month, and it was the couple’s monthly night out.
“It’s just gotten out of reach,” Mr. Andrews said.
But hey, at least they’re paying their fair share now and those evil “rich” people are getting socked.
Of course, taxes are going up on wealthier Americans, too, with a rise in marginal rates on income above $400,000 for individuals and higher taxes on capital gains and dividends. But millions of individual decisions by poorer Americans in Medford, Augusta, Harlem and elsewhere are quickly adding up.
Funny how Obama didn’t mention any of this during the campaign, huh? Another casualty? Obama voters are now eating less healthy.
Ms. Price, 20, whose annual income is $15,000 to $16,000, prefers shopping at Whole Foods, the upscale supermarket chain, which is healthier but more expensive. But since the payroll tax went up, she has been going more often to Publix and Walmart.
“The food that has a lot of fat and food coloring is cheaper,” she said. “It’s a lot more expensive to eat healthier. But now I’m actually looking at the price tag on things rather than grabbing them.”
U
unregistered
Guest
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Finding out what’s in it v 1,467, or “Not this crap again.”
ObamaCare was sold as a health insurance reducer. Instead, in a few years many Americans will see their health insurance costs rise to $20,000 per year. Some premiums will rise by as much as 85%.
ObamaCare was sold as being good for your bottom line. Instead, it may drive the price of pizza through the roof.
And now, it may also force price hikes at your local supermarket.
The proposed regulation would require store owners to label prepared, unpackaged foods found in salad bars and food bars, soups and bakery items. Erik Lieberman, regulatory counsel at the Food Marketing Institute, said testing foods for nutritional data will require either expensive software or even more costly off-site laboratory assessments.
Lieberman said failure to get it right comes with stiff penalties: ”If you get it wrong, it’s a federal crime, and you could face jail time and thousands of dollars worth of fines.”
Supermarket managers could go to jail if they accidentally mislabel a rotisserie chicken or a salad or a sandwich.
The regulation stems from an ObamaCare mandate on posting food nutrition information. It wasn’t part of the public debate on the law, mainly because the FDA extended the rule to include supermarket food after the law was passed. The FDA thinks it’s a supercongress, able to conjure laws and impose them with little comment from the American public and no regard for the economic impact. What input it does get from the public, it ignores. The FDA is supposed to show how this rule benefits Americans, but it couldn’t, yet is proceeding ahead with it anyway. Because it can.
An Executive Order issued by President Obama in 2011 says agencies are supposed to calculate a cost-benefit analysis for each new regulation and attempt to use the least burdensome regulatory methods possible. Critics of the FDA’s food labeling proposal say the agency didn’t comply.
“They are required to do it, and they didn’t,” Lieberman said. “They simply said, ‘We can’t quantify a benefit from this rule,’ and that’s because they really can’t.”
The American citizen’s relationship to the ObamaCare law has become an abusive one.
ObamaCare was sold as a health insurance reducer. Instead, in a few years many Americans will see their health insurance costs rise to $20,000 per year. Some premiums will rise by as much as 85%.
ObamaCare was sold as being good for your bottom line. Instead, it may drive the price of pizza through the roof.
And now, it may also force price hikes at your local supermarket.
The proposed regulation would require store owners to label prepared, unpackaged foods found in salad bars and food bars, soups and bakery items. Erik Lieberman, regulatory counsel at the Food Marketing Institute, said testing foods for nutritional data will require either expensive software or even more costly off-site laboratory assessments.
Lieberman said failure to get it right comes with stiff penalties: ”If you get it wrong, it’s a federal crime, and you could face jail time and thousands of dollars worth of fines.”
Supermarket managers could go to jail if they accidentally mislabel a rotisserie chicken or a salad or a sandwich.
The regulation stems from an ObamaCare mandate on posting food nutrition information. It wasn’t part of the public debate on the law, mainly because the FDA extended the rule to include supermarket food after the law was passed. The FDA thinks it’s a supercongress, able to conjure laws and impose them with little comment from the American public and no regard for the economic impact. What input it does get from the public, it ignores. The FDA is supposed to show how this rule benefits Americans, but it couldn’t, yet is proceeding ahead with it anyway. Because it can.
An Executive Order issued by President Obama in 2011 says agencies are supposed to calculate a cost-benefit analysis for each new regulation and attempt to use the least burdensome regulatory methods possible. Critics of the FDA’s food labeling proposal say the agency didn’t comply.
“They are required to do it, and they didn’t,” Lieberman said. “They simply said, ‘We can’t quantify a benefit from this rule,’ and that’s because they really can’t.”
The American citizen’s relationship to the ObamaCare law has become an abusive one.
U
unregistered
Guest
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Obamacare To Make Mislabeling Nutritional Facts On Food A Federal Crime, Guilty Could Face Jail Time…
Via Fox News:
If the Food and Drug Administration gets its way, your trip to the grocery store could get a tad pricier.
Supermarket owners argue a pending federal food-labeling rule that stems from the new health care law would overburden thousands of grocers and convenience store owners — to the tune of $1 billion in the first year alone.
Store owner Tom Heinen said the industry’s profit margins already are razor thin. “When you incur a significant cost, there is no way that that doesn’t get passed on to the customer in some form,” he said.
The rule stems from an ObamaCare mandate that restaurants provide nutrition information on menus. Most in the restaurant industry were supportive of the idea, but when the FDA decided to extend the provision to also affect thousands of supermarkets and convenience stores, the backlash was swift.
The proposed regulation would require store owners to label prepared, unpackaged foods found in salad bars and food bars, soups and bakery items. Erik Lieberman, regulatory counsel at the Food Marketing Institute, said testing foods for nutritional data will require either expensive software or even more costly off-site laboratory assessments.
Lieberman said failure to get it right comes with stiff penalties: “If you get it wrong, it’s a federal crime, and you could face jail time and thousands of dollars worth of fines
Via Fox News:
If the Food and Drug Administration gets its way, your trip to the grocery store could get a tad pricier.
Supermarket owners argue a pending federal food-labeling rule that stems from the new health care law would overburden thousands of grocers and convenience store owners — to the tune of $1 billion in the first year alone.
Store owner Tom Heinen said the industry’s profit margins already are razor thin. “When you incur a significant cost, there is no way that that doesn’t get passed on to the customer in some form,” he said.
The rule stems from an ObamaCare mandate that restaurants provide nutrition information on menus. Most in the restaurant industry were supportive of the idea, but when the FDA decided to extend the provision to also affect thousands of supermarkets and convenience stores, the backlash was swift.
The proposed regulation would require store owners to label prepared, unpackaged foods found in salad bars and food bars, soups and bakery items. Erik Lieberman, regulatory counsel at the Food Marketing Institute, said testing foods for nutritional data will require either expensive software or even more costly off-site laboratory assessments.
Lieberman said failure to get it right comes with stiff penalties: “If you get it wrong, it’s a federal crime, and you could face jail time and thousands of dollars worth of fines
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
it is a TOTAL FUCKUP
New HHS “family penalty” rule leaves spouses, children unprotected
Just how complicated will ObamaCare get for employers, workers, and families? Politico’s analysis of a decision by the Obama administration and HHS may take several readings to understand exactly how a bill that purports to insure children and spouses may end up leaving them in the cold, and how employers may end up footing more of the bill than Congress claimed when it passed the ACA.
At issue is the question of whether to subsidize additional insurance for workers who can afford their employer-based health care coverage for themselves, but not for their families. Not doing so forces either the worker or employer to pay more of the premium; doing so would explode the subsidy cost for ObamaCare, which has already gone up nearly 40% from original estimates before the first subsidy dollar has been spent. HHS decided against expanding the subsidy even further, but that has real-world implications that won’t make ObamaCare supporters happy:
The Department of Health and Human Services finalized the so-called family penalty in a rule last week. That means the test of whether insurance is affordable is based on the amount the worker pays for their health insurance — not on the cost of the policy for that worker’s whole family.
More specifically, if a worker can pay for employer-sponsored coverage for less than 9.5 percent of income, then dependents won’t be able to get subsidies on the health insurance exchanges that start next year. The health law uses a measure called the modified adjusted gross income to determine eligibility.
So to the dismay of many advocates of health coverage expansion, spouses and kids could fall through the cracks.
The Government Accountability Office, using 2009 data, estimated that about 7 percent of uninsured children — 460,000 — would remain uninsured because parents wouldn’t be able to afford coverage for the whole family.
Don’t forget, too, that the overall benefit of these plans will decrease in order to meet that 9.5% threshold in the first place. Not only will families possibly fall through the cracks, but the worker will have a less-beneficial policy, too.
Brett Norman walks us through a scenario with a worker at 200% of the federal poverty level:
Take a family of three in Florida making $40,000 a year — just over twice the federal poverty level. If one parent works part time and makes $10,000, and the other works full time for a large employer for $30,000, that company would have to offer an individual policy that wouldn’t cost the full-time employee more than $3,800 — 9.5 percent of household income.
For the individual — that shouldn’t be a problem. The average employee paid $951 for insurance in 2012, with the employer paying the rest of the premium, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That’s well below that $3,800 threshold.
But employers often chip in less toward the family coverage. And while the health law does require them to offer coverage for kids — though not for all adults in the family — there’s no legal requirement that they make it affordable.
The average employee contribution for a family policy is $4,316 — which is steep for a lot of families. And if the employer isn’t subsidizing it, the cost could be $15,745 — in the case of the hypothetical Florida family, more than half of the primary breadwinner’s earnings.
Head spinning yet? Here’s where it gets interesting. Some of these children could be covered under the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP), but some states cut off eligibility at 200% of the federal poverty level. Also, CHIP’s funding runs out in 2015, as ObamaCare was supposed to address the issue of uninsured children. If CHIP doesn’t get funding extended, then Obama will have pushed families out of the private health insurance they otherwise would have had, while leaving children with no public assistance options — and that will be true immediately for children of households that make 200% or more of the federal poverty level.
What happens when employers start getting pressured by workers to lower family-insurance costs? First, as Norman writes, they’ll probably get tougher on determining whether the dependents claimed are actually dependents. However, don’t forget that ObamaCare also mandates that family insurance cover “children” to age 26, which makes the entire exercise even more expensive that it already was. The other option — to dump insurance altogether and force employees to go onto the ACA-mandated exchanges and pay the penalties instead — will begin to look mighty tempting. That will create an even bigger explosion in subsidy cost as millions of otherwise-insured workers and their families have to begin looking for insurance on the individual market.
New HHS “family penalty” rule leaves spouses, children unprotected
Just how complicated will ObamaCare get for employers, workers, and families? Politico’s analysis of a decision by the Obama administration and HHS may take several readings to understand exactly how a bill that purports to insure children and spouses may end up leaving them in the cold, and how employers may end up footing more of the bill than Congress claimed when it passed the ACA.
At issue is the question of whether to subsidize additional insurance for workers who can afford their employer-based health care coverage for themselves, but not for their families. Not doing so forces either the worker or employer to pay more of the premium; doing so would explode the subsidy cost for ObamaCare, which has already gone up nearly 40% from original estimates before the first subsidy dollar has been spent. HHS decided against expanding the subsidy even further, but that has real-world implications that won’t make ObamaCare supporters happy:
The Department of Health and Human Services finalized the so-called family penalty in a rule last week. That means the test of whether insurance is affordable is based on the amount the worker pays for their health insurance — not on the cost of the policy for that worker’s whole family.
More specifically, if a worker can pay for employer-sponsored coverage for less than 9.5 percent of income, then dependents won’t be able to get subsidies on the health insurance exchanges that start next year. The health law uses a measure called the modified adjusted gross income to determine eligibility.
So to the dismay of many advocates of health coverage expansion, spouses and kids could fall through the cracks.
The Government Accountability Office, using 2009 data, estimated that about 7 percent of uninsured children — 460,000 — would remain uninsured because parents wouldn’t be able to afford coverage for the whole family.
Don’t forget, too, that the overall benefit of these plans will decrease in order to meet that 9.5% threshold in the first place. Not only will families possibly fall through the cracks, but the worker will have a less-beneficial policy, too.
Brett Norman walks us through a scenario with a worker at 200% of the federal poverty level:
Take a family of three in Florida making $40,000 a year — just over twice the federal poverty level. If one parent works part time and makes $10,000, and the other works full time for a large employer for $30,000, that company would have to offer an individual policy that wouldn’t cost the full-time employee more than $3,800 — 9.5 percent of household income.
For the individual — that shouldn’t be a problem. The average employee paid $951 for insurance in 2012, with the employer paying the rest of the premium, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That’s well below that $3,800 threshold.
But employers often chip in less toward the family coverage. And while the health law does require them to offer coverage for kids — though not for all adults in the family — there’s no legal requirement that they make it affordable.
The average employee contribution for a family policy is $4,316 — which is steep for a lot of families. And if the employer isn’t subsidizing it, the cost could be $15,745 — in the case of the hypothetical Florida family, more than half of the primary breadwinner’s earnings.
Head spinning yet? Here’s where it gets interesting. Some of these children could be covered under the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP), but some states cut off eligibility at 200% of the federal poverty level. Also, CHIP’s funding runs out in 2015, as ObamaCare was supposed to address the issue of uninsured children. If CHIP doesn’t get funding extended, then Obama will have pushed families out of the private health insurance they otherwise would have had, while leaving children with no public assistance options — and that will be true immediately for children of households that make 200% or more of the federal poverty level.
What happens when employers start getting pressured by workers to lower family-insurance costs? First, as Norman writes, they’ll probably get tougher on determining whether the dependents claimed are actually dependents. However, don’t forget that ObamaCare also mandates that family insurance cover “children” to age 26, which makes the entire exercise even more expensive that it already was. The other option — to dump insurance altogether and force employees to go onto the ACA-mandated exchanges and pay the penalties instead — will begin to look mighty tempting. That will create an even bigger explosion in subsidy cost as millions of otherwise-insured workers and their families have to begin looking for insurance on the individual market.
U
unregistered
Guest
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
GOP, Dems call for repeal of $30 billion medical device tax
The Hill
A bipartisan group of 180 House members — consisting of about 40 percent of the House — has reintroduced a bill to end the 2.3 percent tax on medical devices that was imposed under President Obama’s healthcare law.
That tax took effect at the start of 2013, and is expected to raise a few billion dollars a year in tax receipts for the government, and $30 billion over 10 years. But opponents of the tax say it will hinder innovation and job creation in the medical device industry.
“Placing a new tax on the backs of U.S. medical innovators and entrepreneurs who employ more than 400,000 Americans is not a prescription for economic growth or job creation,” said Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-Minn.), who sponsored the bill. “In fact, companies have already laid off thousands of employees as a result of this onerous new tax, and more jobs will be lost now that this tax is in effect.
“It’s not only costing our country jobs and deterring innovation, but more importantly, it will reduce patient access to cutting edge medical products and treatments that save lives.”
Paulsen introduced a similar bill in the last Congress. The latest version would repeal the tax without offsetting spending cuts.
Last year, the House Ways & Means Committee amended his bill to provide for an offset, something that could happen again in the new Congress. Ways & Means attached language that would pay for ending the tax by requiring the government to recapture all overpayments of health insurance subsidies provided in the healthcare law. Under current law, only some of these overpayments must be returned to the government.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...o-30-billion-medical-device-tax#ixzz2KI1dj1Xa
The Hill
A bipartisan group of 180 House members — consisting of about 40 percent of the House — has reintroduced a bill to end the 2.3 percent tax on medical devices that was imposed under President Obama’s healthcare law.
That tax took effect at the start of 2013, and is expected to raise a few billion dollars a year in tax receipts for the government, and $30 billion over 10 years. But opponents of the tax say it will hinder innovation and job creation in the medical device industry.
“Placing a new tax on the backs of U.S. medical innovators and entrepreneurs who employ more than 400,000 Americans is not a prescription for economic growth or job creation,” said Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-Minn.), who sponsored the bill. “In fact, companies have already laid off thousands of employees as a result of this onerous new tax, and more jobs will be lost now that this tax is in effect.
“It’s not only costing our country jobs and deterring innovation, but more importantly, it will reduce patient access to cutting edge medical products and treatments that save lives.”
Paulsen introduced a similar bill in the last Congress. The latest version would repeal the tax without offsetting spending cuts.
Last year, the House Ways & Means Committee amended his bill to provide for an offset, something that could happen again in the new Congress. Ways & Means attached language that would pay for ending the tax by requiring the government to recapture all overpayments of health insurance subsidies provided in the healthcare law. Under current law, only some of these overpayments must be returned to the government.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...o-30-billion-medical-device-tax#ixzz2KI1dj1Xa
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
If its the LAW of the land
If its so fucking good
WHY THE FUCKING WAIVERS?
STFU, NIGGER CURRY WITH YOUR BS.....ITS ONLY TEMP
Obama’s Nominee To Run Dept Of The Interior, Received Waiver From Obamacare Although She Promoted It On Behalf Of Obama
Just one of the many “do as I say, not as I do” hypocrisies from this administration. Some are more equal than others.
Via The Daily Caller:
President Barack Obama’s newly-named nominee to run the Department of the Interior, REI CEO Sally Jewell, sought and received a waiver from Obamacare requirements for her outdoor clothing and equipment company in 2011.
The Washington Examiner’s Charlie Spiering dug up the revelation Thursday, noting that Obama welcomed Jewell to the White House in 2009 to jointly argue for the passage of Obamacare.
Obama held REI up as a model company.
“And then REI, which has to be fit since they’re a fitness company,” Obama joked during the White House meeting on May 12, 2009, “has been doing work that allows them to provide health care coverage, health insurance, not only to their full-time employees but also their part-time employees. Every single employee is covered, but part of the reason they’re able to do it is because they put a big emphasis on prevention and wellness.”
Two years later, Jewell secured an exemption from the law for REI.
REI received an Obamacare waiver around the same time that nearly 20 percent of the businesses in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district received waivers.
If its so fucking good
WHY THE FUCKING WAIVERS?
STFU, NIGGER CURRY WITH YOUR BS.....ITS ONLY TEMP
Obama’s Nominee To Run Dept Of The Interior, Received Waiver From Obamacare Although She Promoted It On Behalf Of Obama
Just one of the many “do as I say, not as I do” hypocrisies from this administration. Some are more equal than others.
Via The Daily Caller:
President Barack Obama’s newly-named nominee to run the Department of the Interior, REI CEO Sally Jewell, sought and received a waiver from Obamacare requirements for her outdoor clothing and equipment company in 2011.
The Washington Examiner’s Charlie Spiering dug up the revelation Thursday, noting that Obama welcomed Jewell to the White House in 2009 to jointly argue for the passage of Obamacare.
Obama held REI up as a model company.
“And then REI, which has to be fit since they’re a fitness company,” Obama joked during the White House meeting on May 12, 2009, “has been doing work that allows them to provide health care coverage, health insurance, not only to their full-time employees but also their part-time employees. Every single employee is covered, but part of the reason they’re able to do it is because they put a big emphasis on prevention and wellness.”
Two years later, Jewell secured an exemption from the law for REI.
REI received an Obamacare waiver around the same time that nearly 20 percent of the businesses in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district received waivers.
U
unregistered
Guest
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Last time I mentioned this Merc said it didn't amount to anything.
Merc=MOE RON
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
its all about DA NIGGAZ
Obama Administration Issues ‘Disparate Impact’ Housing Regulations
By Roger Clegg
The Obama administration yesterday (Friday, natch) issued regulations formally adopting a “disparate impact” approach to enforcing the Fair Housing Act. This means that you can be found liable for illegally discriminating in a housing-related matter by following some policy that has a disproportionate effect, even though the policy is nondiscriminatory by its terms, in its application, and in its intent. So, for example, if a bank’s lending policy for home loans results in, say, a higher percentage of Asians being accepted than Latinos, then it can be held liable (banks have been actively opposing the regulations, unsuprisingly).
The disparate-impact approach is bad law and bad policy, especially in the housing area, as discussed in this brief. Here’s hoping the Supreme Court grants review in a pending case out of Mt. Holly, N.J. — which raises this issue and in which a petition for review has been filed – and puts an end to this nonsense.
Obama Administration Issues ‘Disparate Impact’ Housing Regulations
By Roger Clegg
The Obama administration yesterday (Friday, natch) issued regulations formally adopting a “disparate impact” approach to enforcing the Fair Housing Act. This means that you can be found liable for illegally discriminating in a housing-related matter by following some policy that has a disproportionate effect, even though the policy is nondiscriminatory by its terms, in its application, and in its intent. So, for example, if a bank’s lending policy for home loans results in, say, a higher percentage of Asians being accepted than Latinos, then it can be held liable (banks have been actively opposing the regulations, unsuprisingly).
The disparate-impact approach is bad law and bad policy, especially in the housing area, as discussed in this brief. Here’s hoping the Supreme Court grants review in a pending case out of Mt. Holly, N.J. — which raises this issue and in which a petition for review has been filed – and puts an end to this nonsense.
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
Last time I mentioned this Merc said it didn't amount to anything.
If a taxes make medical device manufacturers save fewer lives then we need to set their tax rates to zero. And every pharmaceutical company and health care related business should all have a 0% tax rate.
Medical device manufacturers are going to make a massive windfall profit on the back of the taxpayers through Obamacare. Tell me why it's not okay to have them pay a 2% tax on profit to give a small amount back. Last time I asked you this question you scrambled to change the subject.
mercury14
Pragmatic Metaphysician
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Posts
- 22,158
It's right wing propaganda. No rational person believes Americans are going to pay $20,000 per year in health care costs in a couple years. Only the most gullible believe the propaganda mill called Newsmax (or rather their Christian subsidiary) and think stupid shit like this.
Oh and the FDA regulation on food hasn't even been written yet. It's currently in the phase where the agency is accepting and processing public comment. Not to mention it's free for supermarkets to know what the nutritional information of salad bar items is. Each item on a salad bar has its nutritional ingredients right there from the food distributor. The only exception is if the salad bar has cheese that's some home brew recipe of that grocer or something.
Stop bitching about fake ass crap and hoaxes. if you want to make some legitimate criticisms of Obamacare, fine. There are plenty of ways to do that. But you don't go that route, you immediately jump right into ignorant misinformation and lies that contradict the text of the law itself.
Last edited:
- Status
