Page 18 of 76
Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 5:15 pm
by GORDON
Obama "Obama Sides with RIAA, MPAA; Backs ACTA"
http://www.osnews.com/story....ks_ACTA
And thus, our true colours reveal. Since Obama was the young newcomer, technically savvy, many of us were hoping that he might support patent and/or copyright reform. In case our story earlier on this subject didn't already tip you off, this certainly will: Obama has sided squarely with the RIAA/MPAA lobby, and backs ACTA. No copyright and/or patent reform for you, American citizens!
Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 5:50 pm
by TheCatt
I think I voted for mediocre. So far he's either that or Jimmy, and I think I'm leaning towards Jimmy.
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:44 am
by Malcolm
I probably voted mediocre. He's still got a year or two of fuck-ups before I'll call him Jimmy. But he's sure as shit on the shady side of mediocre.
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:11 pm
by GORDON
Looks like Obama got his nationalized health care passed.
Enjoy your higher taxes. Enjoy the cost of all goods and services increasing since these additional costs will be passed on to consumers.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=....DZ5NyFw
• Insurance companies will no longer be able to cancel enrollees' policies because they got sick, or to place lifetime caps on their policies' payouts.
• Children can stay on their parents' insurance policies until their 26th birthday.
• Small businesses with fewer than 25 employees and average annual wages of less than $50,000 will be eligible for tax credits to cover up to 35% of their insurance premiums.
• The Medicare payroll tax will go up by 0.9% to 2.35% on wages above $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for married couples
• And various taxes on health care plans, drug importers, and medical device manufacturers.
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:14 pm
by TheCatt
Welcome to a continued world of health care inflation, dumbasses.
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:17 pm
by GORDON
The wife wants to leave the country, now.
What is the most fiscally conservative, socially liberal country on earth?
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:22 pm
by GORDON
One thing I am curious about... does this mean ALL business must now offer health insurance to ALL employees?
I know someone on this forum who will be absolutely screwed, if so.
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:37 pm
by TheCatt
No
As in the Senate bill, businesses are not required to offer coverage. Instead, employers are hit with a fee if the government subsidizes their workers' coverage. The $2,000-per-employee fee would be assessed on the company's entire work force, minus an allowance. Companies with 50 or fewer workers are exempt from the requirement. Part-time workers are included in the calculations, counting two part-timers as one full-time worker.
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:41 pm
by GORDON
Companies with fewer than 50 employees are exempt from WHAT requirement.... to provide coverage, or to pay that $2k penalty?
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:48 pm
by GORDON
Some TV news show just said that Caterpillar Corporation has reported this new nationalized health care is going to cost them an additional $100 million a year.
Which will be passed on to consumers. Just want to reiterate that.
Maybe they will lay some people off to compensate. That is a good idea in the Obama Recession.
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:51 pm
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote:Companies with fewer than 50 employees are exempt from WHAT requirement.... to provide coverage, or to pay that $2k penalty?
I thought to provide coverage. I mean, if there's no penalty, then they aren't being required, right?
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 9:56 pm
by GORDON
So here's the thing.... if small companies aren't required to cover all employees, then the employees, part time or otherwise, are required to cover themselves.
A lot of part time employees will be working only to pay for their government-required insurance, now. Which wont even kick in for another 4 years.
This is an absolute clusterfuck.
Granted, I don't know a lot of the ins and outs, especially since no one has even seen the entire Bill, isn't that right? Including all the peeps who voted for it?
Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 10:59 pm
by GORDON
I strongly suspect Democrats are going to get their asses kicked in the next election cycle.
And then when Republicans have 2/3 of the House, there will be a Constitutional Amendment making government run health care illegal.
Edited By GORDON on 1269226934
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:02 am
by Leisher
there will be a Constitutional Amendment making government run health care illegal.
I support that.
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:29 am
by Troy
Bill really doesn't do much for anyone but Health Care Companies.
Actually, most of it seems designed to shovel money at them while removing restrictions on how much they can charge, and mandating that we have to pay them.
Fuck lobbyist.
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:45 am
by TheCatt
Troy wrote:Bill really doesn't do much for anyone but Health Care Companies.
Actually, most of it seems designed to shovel money at them while removing restrictions on how much they can charge, and mandating that we have to pay them.
Fuck lobbyist.
I've been saying this from the start. This just screws things up even more.
Here's my health care bill:
1) All health care expenses are tax deductible (insurance, pills, whatever).
2) Health care providers must offer the same rate to everyone. Whatever the lowest rate they charge is to any health insurance company, they must offer to everyone.
There's more needed, but that would have been a good start.
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:45 am
by GORDON
Ohio is one of the states going to sue over the constitutionality. NC is not.
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:46 am
by GORDON
I can't believe I am going to be forced by my government to buy a product I do not want.
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:06 am
by Troy
Still not sure who this bill was supposed to make happy.
Fiscal Conservatives hate it for all the reasons you guys are posting.
Liberals can (I guess) see it as a first step towards a UHC like Britain/Spain whatever. But it doesn't even do that, instead, it firmly entrenches the private system with even more power, which will lead to even more profits, which will lead to even more lobbyist.
It's like the reason Communism can never work: human nature. The idea is that by requiring everyone to join a private insurance company, the healthy people will feed the system again. Those same healthy people that supposedly pulled out during the Recession, causing the private insurance pools to be full of expensive sick people, resulting in higher rates.
But Insurance companies aren't going to lower rates, even if more feeders join in. Profits and Power let them put up a smokescreen of shitty math and lobbyist that will sit directly in the pockets of government officials, D/R alike. Basically we just wrote the insurance companies a blank check. Fuck.
In conclusion: Buy stock in Health Care Companies.
Posted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 11:19 am
by Malcolm
This officially gives Obama a shittier record than his predecessor.