Actually yeah, my insurance is now $11400 a year. It has gone down.
So... your yearly cost went down by $600, or ~5%... good for you.
As I highlighted above, you are one of the few fortunate ones to be benefiting from this law... the rest of us are paying much more, seeing reductions in coverage and/or hours, and more difficult time finding primary care doctors... only the surface of which of issues have we begun to see.
Again you pick and choose the facts you wish to present.
And yes... it was by choice, minimum wage job or not. College degree or not. Cable bill, cell phone bill, living alone or not.
In my adult life (I'm only 33)... I have lived in 3 different states by choice, I have moved as needed in order to get a better job and have maintained an ability to be mobile during that time. All choices.
So goes for your brother, if he chose a degree that was not going to have a good chance of quickly getting him a job, that is a poor choice on his part.
If he was not able to cast a net wide enough to find a job, that was his choice.
If he chose not to pursue other avenues of insurance, that again, is on him.
Years ago when I dropped off my parents insurance but did not yet have a full time job with my employer (still an intern waiting for budget to hire me FT)... I was able to buy into the state insurance pool to keep minimal coverage in case of a major event. All choices, even down to the choice of states to live in which had that option.
Yes... God Bless America, a place which rewards those who work hard and make good choices... and punishes those who do not.
I'm sorry to hear about the issues of your brother... though things like that can happen when one chooses to be uninsured.
So what's changed?
He could still lose his job because he is sick depending on whatever employment agreement or state laws are in place.
At least at my company, while the premiums have remained the same, the actual out of costs expenses have gone up significant.
You complain of paying $12k a year for premiums in '09... but failed to mention what you are paying today. Are you actually suggesting they have gone down?
Even the head of the AFL-CIO (a group and leader who both campaigned hard for Obamcare) acknowledges that the law is actually encouraging employers to cut hours: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhmqLB3B5yA
Much of this is moot though... this is still early in the unleashing of this monstrosity. Even if successful in having everyone have coverage... how easy do you think it will be to get the treatment you need and when you need it given the built in disincentives for those you expect to treat you?
But if you think our health insurance system was less broken in 2009 than it is today, you weren't paying attention. We've gone from "worse" to "bad", and I'll take that any day.
Yeah, I remember 2009... it was rather difficult driving to work each day, having to dodge the millions of dead in the streets who died because of lack of health insurance.
Today though... you have millions losing their insurance and hours being cut as a direct result of the law... and you say we've gone from "worse" to "bad"? You do seem to have interesting definitions of words.
Gonzales v. Raich says states do not have that right to declare marijuana legal (at least for medicinal purposes).
As I said, this is another case of this administration picking & choosing which laws they wish to enforce and those they do not for simply policy reasons.
The administration declares (and gets court approval) to say that states have limited authority to enforce federal immigration laws in the case of Arizona... but turn the other way when cities & states go out of their way to ignore other federal immigration laws.
Again, I am waiting for more than just a cursory claim along the lines of "to save money, stop charging anyone who commits a crime on Tuesdays"... for if such a proclamation is enough, then anyone screaming "it's coming right for us" is enough justification to claim the out of season shooting of an animal or person is justifiable... yet we see no evidence that their budgetary issue is such that they are diverting money from these prosecutions to other much more needed areas.
Correct... if the contract has a built in mechanism for changes to be made.
I control a trust which owns a number of items. That trust has just such statements, so does the US Constitution... and at last check the President or Supreme Court are not authorized by it to make unilateral changes at their whim as neither own or control it... and yet that is what we have to day.
As to if this document still holds legal weight could also be questioned, I suppose, but technically all the Constitution of 1787 did was update this document.
Afraid not. The US Constitution is a full replacement for the Articles of Confederation, and why they opted to do full replacement vs a (long) series of amendments... is a much lengthier discussion.
The Articles of Confederation have as much legal weight today as the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, which is the same as the Federalist, Anti-Federalist papers, as well as the ratification debate notes... interesting insights into the thinking & deliberations at the time.
Tell that to your banker when they try to collect on your debts and you demand that they re-interpret your loan agreement in ways that are more favorable to you.
"Sure it says that payment is due by the 10th of the month... but it didn't specify which month, clearly it is a month of my choosing and you hitting me with late fees is just improper!"
It's always odd to me how some are incapable of using the term 'profiling' without the misplaced prefix of 'racial'.
They engage in profiling. Period.
Profiling comes in many different kinds, shame you are ignoring them.
Example: If you pay cash for a one way ticket an hour before the flight leaves and you are carrying only a carry on bag... regardless of race or nationality, you are going to get a more in-depth look than someone who books 6 weeks in advance with a credit card along with their family and multiple bags.
Bingo. And worse, this administration has shown itself quite willing to attack state laws when they think they violate federal law (or just mirror them).
See AZs (failed) attempt to mirror federal immigration law in some respects (while others the feds join hand in hand with states on), or voter ID laws across the country. Hell, we see now in the wake of the striking down of section 4(A) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965... the older DOJ still seeks to sue Texas under section 5... which is fully dependent on 4(a) being replaced.
Odd too that today the Obama Administration announced a couple of proposed changed to federal firearm regulations, one that will cost it tax revenue by denying of the re-importation of WWII era firearms... and another will require even more time & money to be spent (by both individuals and the BATF) when buying NFA items.
It's almost as if the claim of lack of money... is just an excuse to conduct policy in a way that they would prefer.
So yes, I am able to read... but also comprehend what I read and do not tailor either to just the subject at hand, might I suggest you try it?
Our analysis begins with settled, bedrock principles of constitutional law. Under Article II of the Constitution and relevant Supreme Court precedents, the President must follow statutory mandates so long as there is appropriated money available and the President has no constitutional objection to the statute. So, too, the President must abide by statutory prohibitions unless the President has a constitutional objection to the prohibition. If the President has a constitutional objection to a statutory mandate or prohibition, the President may decline to follow the law unless and until a final Court order dictates otherwise. But the President may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections. Of course, if Congress appropriates no money for a statutorily mandated program, the Executive obviously cannot move forward. But absent a lack of funds or a claim of unconstitutionality that has not been rejected by final Court order, the Executive must abide by statutory mandates and prohibitions.
It goes on from there quite a bit, but then this is nothing new, the President has a long history of playing "catch me if you can" with policies and selective enforcement.
You seem to be assuming that constitutional amendments are passed by the federal government alone, and ignoring the fact that 3/4ths of the several states must also ratify a given amendment for it to be adopted.
As far as it taking an amendment to make alcohol illegal but not pot... talk to the courts. They have (sadly) upheld the federal laws to this effect repeatedly.
Granted... they did once also say that a farmer growing wheat on his own land and for his own consumption did run afoul of a federal law (Wickard v Filburn)... so this is all nothing new.
Which specific item of the constitution do you imagine prevents that?
Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight:
I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
How exactly does "picking which laws I want to enforce" get lumped into his oath to "faithfully execute" his office?... not that this is the first time he's opted to ignore the law and rule by fiat.
All that means is that at some point, when so many problems have been solved that there is almost nothing left for humans to do, society will have to be restructured to cope with it.
You are ignoring everything between now and then.
One of the reasons that the US has lost so much of it's manufacturing is because of labor costs.
Good for China, bad for US (jobs wise), however there will be a day when the likes of Foxconn, Quanta, Flextronics and others decide that it's cheaper (and more precise) to get rid of as many humans as they can and replace them with automation.
How well do you think that will go over with any government or mass of recently laid off workers who see the same thing happening at other factories in short order?
While it is true the normal view is that 40 hours a week is 'full time'... Obamacare actually treats anyone working 30+ hours as a full time employee (ditto 2x people who work 15 hours each a week).
When you get into these well meaning but poorly thought out attempts at social engineering, you often find such 'unexpected', but entirely predictable results be it companies cutting staff, hours, kicking spouses off of plans, dropping insurance all together.
Correct, but because of the favorable treatment of it in the tax code, this is what we have.
Alas instead of trying to make the system more competitive, cost effective & workable... it often seems that point for point Obamacare was crafted to do just the opposite.
If you are in a vegetative state during high school, you can still get a diploma, you'll just be in the bottom half of your class.
Tell that to my GED.
I showed up most days to HS, quit caring mid-way through, kept attending, kept getting failing grades in classes I didn't care about. Week after my class graduated (without me clearly) I went and did the GED test, passed and moved on (BS, MS, lucrative job).
For years I've heard about kids being passed through the system as you describe... and I'm forced to laugh as there was none of that at my HS.
Slashdot Mirror
So... your yearly cost went down by $600, or ~5%... good for you.
As I highlighted above, you are one of the few fortunate ones to be benefiting from this law... the rest of us are paying much more, seeing reductions in coverage and/or hours, and more difficult time finding primary care doctors... only the surface of which of issues have we begun to see.
Again you pick and choose the facts you wish to present.
And yes... it was by choice, minimum wage job or not. College degree or not. Cable bill, cell phone bill, living alone or not.
In my adult life (I'm only 33)... I have lived in 3 different states by choice, I have moved as needed in order to get a better job and have maintained an ability to be mobile during that time. All choices.
So goes for your brother, if he chose a degree that was not going to have a good chance of quickly getting him a job, that is a poor choice on his part.
If he was not able to cast a net wide enough to find a job, that was his choice.
If he chose not to pursue other avenues of insurance, that again, is on him.
Years ago when I dropped off my parents insurance but did not yet have a full time job with my employer (still an intern waiting for budget to hire me FT)... I was able to buy into the state insurance pool to keep minimal coverage in case of a major event. All choices, even down to the choice of states to live in which had that option.
Yes... God Bless America, a place which rewards those who work hard and make good choices... and punishes those who do not.
I'm sorry to hear about the issues of your brother... though things like that can happen when one chooses to be uninsured.
So what's changed?
He could still lose his job because he is sick depending on whatever employment agreement or state laws are in place.
At least at my company, while the premiums have remained the same, the actual out of costs expenses have gone up significant.
You complain of paying $12k a year for premiums in '09... but failed to mention what you are paying today. Are you actually suggesting they have gone down?
Thanks to Obamacare, we have:
UPS dropping sources from insurance: http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/21/news/companies/ups-obamacare/index.html
California is expecting to see premium prices increase by 64-146%: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/
Even the head of the AFL-CIO (a group and leader who both campaigned hard for Obamcare) acknowledges that the law is actually encouraging employers to cut hours: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhmqLB3B5yA
I am fortunate that at my company... rather than increasing premiums, they simply raised the out of pocket expenses like many others: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/01/12/insurance-analysts-obamacare-to-increase-out-of-pocket-premium-costs-despite-lavish-subsidies/
So again... what is to grand about today?
Much of this is moot though... this is still early in the unleashing of this monstrosity. Even if successful in having everyone have coverage... how easy do you think it will be to get the treatment you need and when you need it given the built in disincentives for those you expect to treat you?
Yeah, I remember 2009... it was rather difficult driving to work each day, having to dodge the millions of dead in the streets who died because of lack of health insurance.
Today though... you have millions losing their insurance and hours being cut as a direct result of the law... and you say we've gone from "worse" to "bad"? You do seem to have interesting definitions of words.
Gonzales v. Raich says states do not have that right to declare marijuana legal (at least for medicinal purposes).
As I said, this is another case of this administration picking & choosing which laws they wish to enforce and those they do not for simply policy reasons.
The administration declares (and gets court approval) to say that states have limited authority to enforce federal immigration laws in the case of Arizona... but turn the other way when cities & states go out of their way to ignore other federal immigration laws.
Again, I am waiting for more than just a cursory claim along the lines of "to save money, stop charging anyone who commits a crime on Tuesdays"... for if such a proclamation is enough, then anyone screaming "it's coming right for us" is enough justification to claim the out of season shooting of an animal or person is justifiable... yet we see no evidence that their budgetary issue is such that they are diverting money from these prosecutions to other much more needed areas.
Correct... if the contract has a built in mechanism for changes to be made.
I control a trust which owns a number of items. That trust has just such statements, so does the US Constitution... and at last check the President or Supreme Court are not authorized by it to make unilateral changes at their whim as neither own or control it... and yet that is what we have to day.
Afraid not. The US Constitution is a full replacement for the Articles of Confederation, and why they opted to do full replacement vs a (long) series of amendments... is a much lengthier discussion.
The Articles of Confederation have as much legal weight today as the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, which is the same as the Federalist, Anti-Federalist papers, as well as the ratification debate notes... interesting insights into the thinking & deliberations at the time.
Tell that to your banker when they try to collect on your debts and you demand that they re-interpret your loan agreement in ways that are more favorable to you.
"Sure it says that payment is due by the 10th of the month... but it didn't specify which month, clearly it is a month of my choosing and you hitting me with late fees is just improper!"
It's always odd to me how some are incapable of using the term 'profiling' without the misplaced prefix of 'racial'.
They engage in profiling. Period.
Profiling comes in many different kinds, shame you are ignoring them.
Example: If you pay cash for a one way ticket an hour before the flight leaves and you are carrying only a carry on bag... regardless of race or nationality, you are going to get a more in-depth look than someone who books 6 weeks in advance with a credit card along with their family and multiple bags.
Bingo. And worse, this administration has shown itself quite willing to attack state laws when they think they violate federal law (or just mirror them).
See AZs (failed) attempt to mirror federal immigration law in some respects (while others the feds join hand in hand with states on), or voter ID laws across the country. Hell, we see now in the wake of the striking down of section 4(A) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965... the older DOJ still seeks to sue Texas under section 5... which is fully dependent on 4(a) being replaced.
Sounds reasonable... if true... where is the statement to that effect?
More so, why only in certain drug cases?
Yes, page for page down to the last detail.
Why let facts get in the way of a good bit of misinformation? http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2012/02/dont-blame-heritage-for-obamacare-mandate
Did I miss a bake sale outside of the DOJ as they tried to raise funds to prosecute those they just can't afford to anymore?
If not, clearly then it should be trivial to find the list of charges that the DOJ had de-prioritized because of lack of money to prosecute them.
What's that? Just the other week the DOJ also asked prosecutors to withhold evidence or opt for lessor charges in other drug crimes, not because of a lack of money, but because of a dislike of mandatory minimum sentences? http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/08/12/2444441/holder-sentencing-and-drugs/
Odd too that today the Obama Administration announced a couple of proposed changed to federal firearm regulations, one that will cost it tax revenue by denying of the re-importation of WWII era firearms... and another will require even more time & money to be spent (by both individuals and the BATF) when buying NFA items.
It's almost as if the claim of lack of money... is just an excuse to conduct policy in a way that they would prefer.
So yes, I am able to read... but also comprehend what I read and do not tailor either to just the subject at hand, might I suggest you try it?
There may be some latitude, but not 'wide latitude'... to quote the ruling in the recent Yucca mountain decision against the NRC:
It goes on from there quite a bit, but then this is nothing new, the President has a long history of playing "catch me if you can" with policies and selective enforcement.
Says the person who responds not to my post but to how Slashdot identified friends/foes.
Yes... quite logical.
You seem to be assuming that constitutional amendments are passed by the federal government alone, and ignoring the fact that 3/4ths of the several states must also ratify a given amendment for it to be adopted.
As far as it taking an amendment to make alcohol illegal but not pot... talk to the courts. They have (sadly) upheld the federal laws to this effect repeatedly.
Granted... they did once also say that a farmer growing wheat on his own land and for his own consumption did run afoul of a federal law (Wickard v Filburn)... so this is all nothing new.
Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight:
How exactly does "picking which laws I want to enforce" get lumped into his oath to "faithfully execute" his office? ... not that this is the first time he's opted to ignore the law and rule by fiat.
You are ignoring everything between now and then.
One of the reasons that the US has lost so much of it's manufacturing is because of labor costs.
Good for China, bad for US (jobs wise), however there will be a day when the likes of Foxconn, Quanta, Flextronics and others decide that it's cheaper (and more precise) to get rid of as many humans as they can and replace them with automation.
How well do you think that will go over with any government or mass of recently laid off workers who see the same thing happening at other factories in short order?
While it is true the normal view is that 40 hours a week is 'full time'... Obamacare actually treats anyone working 30+ hours as a full time employee (ditto 2x people who work 15 hours each a week).
When you get into these well meaning but poorly thought out attempts at social engineering, you often find such 'unexpected', but entirely predictable results be it companies cutting staff, hours, kicking spouses off of plans, dropping insurance all together.
Correct, but because of the favorable treatment of it in the tax code, this is what we have.
Alas instead of trying to make the system more competitive, cost effective & workable... it often seems that point for point Obamacare was crafted to do just the opposite.
You seem not to be paying attention, nor have any understanding of how businesses plan ahead: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/07/31/who-can-deny-it-obamacare-is-accelerating-u-s-towards-a-part-time-nation/
Obamacare & it's assistance in creating mostly part time jobs would disagree.
Tell that to my GED.
I showed up most days to HS, quit caring mid-way through, kept attending, kept getting failing grades in classes I didn't care about. Week after my class graduated (without me clearly) I went and did the GED test, passed and moved on (BS, MS, lucrative job).
For years I've heard about kids being passed through the system as you describe... and I'm forced to laugh as there was none of that at my HS.
If only I had mod points... as it's a rare day I'd want to give them to an AC.