Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Nothing comes close to that ? Who is it that taxes you , if you don't enlist in Lord Obama's all glorious h-c plan?

The US Govt. But it's no in any way claiming ownership, right ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
It's funny to see you try to play grown up.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Anyone who doesn't believe that O-Care puts the healthcare industry in govt control literally is ignorant beyond belief.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Anyone who doesn't believe that O-Care puts the healthcare industry in govt control literally is ignorant beyond belief.

---

You are really so fucking stupid it hurts sometimes. The health care industry has been regulated for a long fucking time now. Obamacare are new regulations. Further more "control" is not ownership, which is what Socialism is about, ownership.

We have all known you ignore a change facts you don't like for some time now. Apparently you do the same for words.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration adopted a strict definition of affordable health insurance on Wednesday that will deny federal financial assistance to millions of Americans with modest incomes who cannot afford family coverage offered by employers.

In deciding whether an employer’s health plan is affordable, the Internal Revenue Service said it would look at the cost of coverage only for an individual employee, not for a family. Family coverage might be prohibitively expensive, but federal subsidies would not be available to help buy insurance for children in the family.

The policy decision came in a final regulation interpreting ambiguous language in the 2010 health care law.

Under the law, most Americans will be required to have health insurance starting next year. Low- and middle-income people can get tax credits to help them pay premiums, unless they have access to affordable coverage from an employer.

The law specifies that employer-sponsored insurance is not affordable if a worker’s share of the premium is more than 9.5 percent of the worker’s household income. The I.R.S. said this calculation should be based solely on the cost of individual coverage, what the worker would pay for “self-only coverage.”

“This is bad news for kids,” said Jocelyn A. Guyer, an executive director of the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University. “We can see kids falling through the cracks. They will lack access to affordable employer-based family coverage and still be locked out of tax credits to help them buy coverage for their kids in the marketplaces, or exchanges, being established in every state.”

In 2012, according to an annual survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, total premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance averaged $5,615 a year for single coverage and $15,745 for family coverage. The employee’s share of the premium averaged $951 for individual coverage and more than four times as much, $4,316, for family coverage.

Under the I.R.S. rule, such costs would be considered affordable for a family making $35,000 a year, even though the family would have to spend 12 percent of its income for full coverage under the employer’s plan.

The tax agency proposed this approach in August 2011 and made no change in the definition of “affordable coverage” despite protests from advocates for children and low-income people and many employers. Employers did not want to be required to pay for coverage of employees’ dependents. But they said that family members should have access to subsidies so they could buy insurance on their own.

However, that would have increased costs to the government, which would have been required to spend more on subsidies.

Paul W. Dennett, senior vice president of the American Benefits Council, which represents many Fortune 500 companies, said: “Individuals who do not have affordable family coverage should be eligible for premium tax credits in the exchange. The final rule does not provide that.”

Under the law, people who go without insurance will generally be subject to tax penalties. In a separate proposed regulation issued on Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service said that the uninsured children and spouse of an employee would be exempt from the penalties if the cost of coverage for the entire family under an employer’s plan was more than 8 percent of household income.

Bruce Lesley, the president of First Focus, a child advocacy group, said: “The administration recognizes that the cost of family coverage will be unaffordable for many families. They will not have to pay the penalty. But that will not be much of a consolation to families who cannot get health insurance for their kids.”

The 2010 health care law extended Medicaid to many childless adults and others who were previously ineligible. The Supreme Court said the expansion of Medicaid was an option for states, not a requirement as Congress had intended.

Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, said Wednesday that she wanted to use her discretion to prevent the imposition of tax penalties on certain uninsured low-income people in states that choose not to expand Medicaid.

A rule proposed by her department would guarantee an exemption from the penalties for anyone found ineligible for Medicaid solely because of a state’s decision not to expand the program. The administration said this was “an appropriate use of the hardship exemption.”

About 20 states are expected to expand Medicaid; governors in other states are opposed or uncommitted. Many illegal immigrants, prisoners and members of certain religious groups opposed to the acceptance of insurance benefits will also be exempt from penalties if they forgo coverage, the administration said.

The Congressional Budget Office predicts that 30 million people will be uninsured in 2016 and that 6 million of them will pay penalties.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/us/politics/irs-to-base-insurance-af
fordability-on-single-coverage.html?ref=us&_r=0

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
It's sad to see someone one so angry and so stupid as you.

But , that's your cross to bear.

Upset that I tell the truth about your lord and savior, Obama ? Deal w/ it.


Federal Rule Limits Aid to Families Who Can’t Afford Employers’ Health Coverage

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Wasn't sure if you were bright enough to comprehend it, now I know.

The claims of the O-Care law are being found to be more and more absurd, and costly, than anyone imagined.

Remember, we had to pass the bill first, to find out what was in it ?

Well, we're finding out,and it's gonna stick everyone for more than they bargained.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Remember, we had to pass the bill first, to find out what was in it ?

---

Quote:

---

Well, we're finding out,and it's gonna stick everyone for more than they bargained.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

The federal govt is 16 trillion + in debt, and you really are a gullible mark, aren't you ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Deny what, that Obama is a liberal. No one ever denied that.

---

YES THEY DID !!

That's the entire point here. That the MSM actually DID try to paint Obama as a "moderate", when in fact he's the most Left leaning individual in the WH - EVER.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Rush also says that every abortion should be performed with a gun.

I'm sure Rappy agrees with him 100% on that, too.

Color me unimpressed.

---

Cite ?

Oh, that's right. You're famous for making shit up and or completely misstating what others say.

Kinda like Cheney and his " Deficits don't matter " lie you love to promote.

---

You're saying that Cheney never said those words? Hell, even your senile buddy Geezer quoted them back to you, dipshit.

And by the way, here's Rush, from his own website:

"You know how to stop abortion? Require that each one occur with a gun."

His exact words, quoted on his own website, by him.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/01/16/revenge_on_the_bitter_cli
ngers

Suck it, fatty.

Quote:

---

But when have facts ever impressed you ? Seems fairy tales and lies are what get you all hot and bothered.

---

Says the guy who fantasizes about being in the pants of a 14-year-old girl...





"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

The federal govt is 16 trillion + in debt, and you really are a gullible mark, aren't you ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:Death panels are real, btw. Call them what ever the hell you want, but they're exactly that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Remember, we had to pass the bill first, to find out what was in it ?

---

You're thinking of the Patriot Act. Y'know, that one you supported back when we needed to invade Iraq to find out what was in it.

How much was that supposed to cost? And how much has it cost so far?

Yet you still insist it was totally worth it. Schmuck. We've all seen exactly how gullible and stupid you are, time and time again.

Quote:

---

Well, we're finding out,and it's gonna stick everyone for more than they bargained.

---

But if we say it's spreading democracy, you'll jump right in line. Or if we say it's for killing brown people. You're always down with that, too.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
nickerson - was this country's rating down graded or was it not ? You think 16+ trillion in debt isn't any problem, at all?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
IPAB, Obamacare’s Super-Legislature
It’s even worse than you thought.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
nickerson - was this country's rating down graded or was it not ? You think 16+ trillion in debt isn't any problem, at all?



IPAB, Obamacare’s Super-Legislature
It’s even worse than you thought.

By Michael F. Cannon & Diane Cohen

The individual mandate isn’t Obamacare’s only unconstitutional provision, or even its most unconstitutional provision. That distinction belongs to the Independent Payment Advisory Board. A heretofore unreported feature of this super-legislature makes it even more authoritarian and dangerous than anyone knew.

IPAB consists of up to 15 unelected government “experts.” Its stated purpose is to restrain Medicare spending. If projected spending exceeds certain targets, Obamacare requires IPAB to issue “legislative proposals” to reduce future spending. Those proposals could include drastic cuts that jeopardize seniors’ access to care, leading some critics to label IPAB a “death panel.”

But the really dangerous part is that these are not mere “proposals.” Obamacare requires the secretary of Health and Human Services to implement them — which means they become law automatically — unless Congress takes certain steps to head them off. Congress may replace the Board’s proposal with its own cuts, at least initially. But Obamacare requires a three-fifths vote in the Senate to pass any replacement that spends more than the Board’s proposal. In other words, to override IPAB’s proposal completely, opponents must assemble a simple majority in the House and a three-fifths majority in the Senate and the president’s signature.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302876/ipab-obamacare-s-super-l
egislature-michael-f-cannon

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
nickerson - was this country's rating down graded or was it not ? You think 16+ trillion in debt isn't any problem, at all?

---

By one rating agency that was trying to make a political statement. In the end it did nothing but make that one agency look foolish. No for the size of the US economy 16 trillion is not a problem.

---