“First, the Obama administration has said that the recession ended in June, 2010, so we are no longer in a recession.
Most states provide unemployment benefits for 26 weeks, so these benefits are still available. The Senate voted on two bills to extend unemployment benefits, and both failed. The first bill would have extended benefits for 3 months (total of 9 months) at a cost of $6.4 billion. The second bill would have extended benefits for 11 months (total of 17 months) and would have be paid for by continuing a 2% cut to Medicare health providers for an additional year, through 2024.
Fact of life: Unemployed people really have little or no incentive to look for a job, while they are receiving a monthly benefits check, until these benefits are about to run out. Of course, they want these benefits to be extended. Then they say, "I can't find a job".
There was an article in the local paper on 08/23/2013 about an unemployed man who was offered a job paying $9.75 an hour at a pizza shop. He declined the offer, saying, "...he was making $10 an hour by sitting on his butt". He then said, "...he needed at least $15 to $18 an hour to go to work." How many people receiving unemployment benefits has this type of an attitude?
Extending benefits past 26 weeks (about 6 1/2 months) only serves to push out that point where the person says, "I HAVE to find a job.”
“Remember, the government can do anything they WANT to do. If they want to change the funds appropriated to foreign aid, they can do it. But, some people think that sending money, that we do not have, to foreign countries is more important than using these funds to help solve problems right here in the U.S. And, yes, many people would be glad to be hired by ICE. Growing the government and spending federal funds has never stopped Obama from doing what he wants.
You made my point. We have a law on the books, IRCA of 1986, that has never been enforces by ANY administration. That is the problem. If the requirements of this 1986 law had been enforced, we may not have 11.5 illegal immigrants yelling for citizenship. As far as Bush granting amnesty to thousands of illegal (NOT "undocumented" - PC) law-breaking immigrants, I think you are confused by facts. It was Reagan who issues amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants, not Bush.
That being said, I do respect you opinion and comments.”
anthonylee on Jun 3, 2014 at 09:16:58
“William, as a rational practitioner and student of law, in order for something to be "illegal" there needs to be an actual law to point to that has been breached or broken. It has nothing to do with "PC" and more to do with actual reading of law. Immigration law is a series of laws regulating documentation and issuance of Visas, Green Cards and quantity of immigrants from each respective nation around the globe. The actual law that is broken by these people is inaccurate, forged or missing documentation required by law. To simply describe them as "illegals" does not accurately classify them in the eyes of the law.
I lived in Houston Texas back in 2000 and witnessed the thousands of immigrants standing in line at their respective consulates seeking documentation for amnesty. Check out this link - http://rense.com/general49/immig.htm”
“By our count at the Galen Institute, more than 41 significant changes already have been made to ObamaCare: at least 23 that the Obama Administration has made unilaterally. Examples:
Employee reporting: The administration, contrary to the Obamacare legislation, instituted a one-year delay of the requirement that employers must report to their employees on their W-2 forms the full cost of their employer-provided health insurance. 1/1/2012
Closing the high-risk pool: The administration decided to halt enrollment in transitional federal high-risk pools created by the law, blocking coverage for an estimated 40,000 new applicants, citing a lack of funds. The administration had money from a fund under Secretary Sebelius’s control to extend the pools, but instead used the money to pay for advertising for Obamacare enrollment and other purposes. 2/15/2013
Doubling allowed deductibles: Because some group health plans use more than one benefits administrator, plans are allowed to apply separate patient cost-sharing limits for one year to different services, such as doctor/hospital and prescription drugs, allowing maximum out-of-pocket costs to be twice as high as the law intended. 2/20/2013
Congressional opt-out: The administration decided to offer employer contributions to members of Congress and their staffs when they purchase insurance on the exchanges created by the ACA, a subsidy the law doesn’t provide. 9/30/2013
I guess Obama thinks that he can change the law any time he wants to, since he signed the LAW>”
anthonylee on Jun 3, 2014 at 08:42:46
“You might want to check your definition of "change" in codified law. . . .
The changes you and the Galen Institute cite are actually implementation or execution of the law; the actual letter of the law hasn't changed by one letter or punctuation mark since its signing.
Civics 101 - there are 3 ways to change law, one for each branch of government. . .
1. Repeal - legislative
2. Veto - executive
3. Strike Down - judicial
Now, which of these three has occurred with respect to the ACA (aka Obamacare)?”
“"Since it's such a disaster, why are millions and millions of Americans signing up?" Do you mean the 8 million that SIGNED UP? How many of these people actually paid their first premium? How many will drop their insurance, because they can not afford it? How may can not afford the increased co-pay, deductibles, and co-insurance? Things are not always as they seem.
If Obamacare is NOT such a disaster, why did Congress want its members and their staff EXEMPT, as they said Obamacare was too expensive? They did not get the exemption, but they did get it approved for the tax payer to pay 75% of their premiums. Why did the unions want to be exempt, when they learned the adverse affect Obamacare would have on them. Why are there 14 distinct EXEMPTIONS to Obamacare with the last one being issued last December? That exemption: "You experienced another hardship in obtaining health insurance." But, DOES NOT state what a "hardship" is and states, "Please submit documentation if possible." That could include about everybody.”
anthonylee on Jun 3, 2014 at 08:52:43
“So let's say 1/2 of the 8 million (4 million) actually paid and have previously unattainable health coverage - does not that equate to the definition of "millions?"
You mean why did Congress and their staff "EXEMPT" themselves in favor of their alternate taxpayer subsidized healthcare plan? Are you seriously asking that question?
1) Requiring insurance companies to insure people with pre-existing conditions.
2) Allowing people to stay on their parent's policy until the age of 26. This is debatable, since this eliminated some younger people that the administration needed to sign up.
3) Removed the lifetime cap.
4) "Free" preventive services. But, some one has to pay for these services.
5) More people have health insurance.
1) Reflects that the government knows what is better for you than you know.
2) Requires EVERYONE to have health insurance, regardless of what that person wants. (See 1)).
3) Fines people for not having health insurance. However, this "fine" was changed to "tax" by the Supreme Court, so Obamacare could be determined to be constitutional.
4) Added 6 million people to the Medicaid rolls, even though we have a doctor shortage and only 50% of doctors see Medicaid patients. When these people can not be seen, they will go to the ER, so what have we gained?
5) Establishing what health care providers, including hospitals, that will be "in-network".
6) Limits the doctors that people can see and/or hospitals that they have gone to in the past.
I really do not think that 50.6% of the popular vote in the second election is "Overwhelming". The election (2012) was held BEFORE people learned that they couldn't see their doctor, go to the hospital of their choice, see their premiums NOT go down by $2,500. Believing Ogama - BIG mistake.”
“No, I am NOT mad that Obamacare is the law of the land, as it has some good features. However, I am concerned about how it was rammed through the House and Senate and signed by the President without even knowing what was in it (Pelosi's ridiculous statement). If the President DID KNOW what was in the bill, he lied, to get support, by saying, "If you like your doctor...", "If you like your insurance...", and " Everybody's premiums will go down by about $2,500.
The law has been changed at least 41 times so it is kind of hard to actually know what is actually in the law. I read ObamaCare Survival Guide, and I thought that I understood how Obamacare would affect health care, but the law has been changes, that source is not longer reliable.
If Obamacare is based upon a Republican idea, maybe the Democrats could have learned something about drafting a health care law from the Republicans. But, no, especially Reid, would not hear of any input from the opposition. It was his way and his way only.
For the record, I would feel the same way, if the bill had been rammed through Congress by the REPUBLICANS and signed into law by a REPUBLICAN President. There is a reason that we have a two-party system.”
maigesheng on Jun 2, 2014 at 16:12:29
“What are some of its good features and some of its bad features?
As far as it being rammed through: Consider this. The President was elected TWICE. The first time, in a landslide. The centerpiece of his first campaign was that he was going to work on the ACA. His second campaign was made a referendum on the ACA, by the Republicans. Do Americans want this or not.
Americans voted overwhelmingly in favor of this. Twice.
But Republicans obstructed, just as they said they would.
to compromise with Republican obstructionism, Obama caved and turned this into a Republican wet dream. But they still obstructed. Because, as they made public REPEATEDLY, their number one objective was to obstruct everything that had anything to do with Obama. Nevermind the electorate.
“I guess that you can blame Fox News for everything that you do not agree with, but in the case of the term "Obamacare, you are wrong.
Who is responsible for crafting the term "Obamacare?" - The Atlantic has done some digging and now reports that it's found the answer. In March 2007, lobbyist Jeanne Schulte Scott, in her analysis of the 2008 presidential campaign, wrote this in the trade magazine Healthcare Financial Management: "The many would-be candidates for president in 2008 are falling over themselves offering their own proposals. We will soon see a "Giuliani-care" and "Obama-care"...".
"Abortion?..." I guess that you do not have a dictionary.
2) : MONSTROSITY - extraordinarily ugly or vicious : horrible or shockingly wrong or ridiculous
3) : arrest of development (as of a part or process) resulting in imperfection
Now, does that make sense?
You are kidding yourself, if you think ANYONE really knows what is in the law. After all, more than 41 significant changes already have been made to ObamaCare: at least 23 that the Obama Administration has made unilaterally. You are right. I do not know what is in the law, as I do not know if and when Obama will change it again.
"Most people who were opposed have now discovered what IS in the law, and have come to accept or embrace it." A little naïve. 4/29/14 poll - 46 percent unfavorable, 38 percent favorable. By the way, those apples are rotten.”
maigesheng on Jun 2, 2014 at 01:16:11
“So, Are you mad that this is and will continue to be the law of the land?
Even though you admittedly dont know what is in the law?”
“I love it when liberals try to put a liberal spin on Obamacare.
For three years the Democrats were proud to call the new law "Obamcare", and then, after the disastrous roll-out, they wanted the new law called "ACA". Guess they did not wanted Obama's name associated with this abortion. You said that half of the people didn't want it, and half said it was a first step. Was this before OR after the people found out what was REALLY in the law?
"Roll out?" - Yes, there was serious concern about the roll-out, and it had nothing to do with politics. Ask the people who could not see their doctor (not in network), could not go to their hospital of choice (not in network), had their policies cancelled (did not meet Obamacare requirements), etc..
"Everyone except For news is now in favor of Obamacare." Where have you been?
4/2/2014 - "American voters oppose the Affordable Care Act 55 – 41 percent and 40 percent are less likely to vote for a candidate who supports Obamacare, while 27 percent are more likely and 31 percent say this will not affect their vote."
Yes, I am tired of old liberal talking points like, "...we were all immigrants, at one point." That is about as ridiculous as saying, "Blacks were all slaves, at one point". I am NOT an immigrant, I am an AMERICAN.”
maigesheng on Jun 1, 2014 at 09:57:44
“"For three years the Democrats were proud to call the new law "Obamcare", and then, after the disastrous roll-out, they wanted the new law called "ACA"."
Wrong. This is an incorrect spin, based on Fox News rants. The term Obamacare was used as a deogatory slur. In fact, invented on Fox News, and mouthed by Conservatives. After a while, the term lost its bite, and that became the normal thing for EVERYONE to say. ACA, just happens to be the name of the act. Liberals did not decide on this. That is its name. Most people, in fact, call it Obamacare, with negative, positive or neutral connotations.
Abortion? That makes zero sense.
"Was this before OR after the people found out what was REALLY in the law?"
Lets not put a time on this. I am speaking of people who actually pay attention and had reason to have an opinion because they/we actually know what we are talking about. Whereas, I am led to believe that you STILL dont know what is in the law. Since you ask, though. Most people who were opposed have now discovered what IS in the law, and have come to accept or embrace it. Hows them apples?
“I think we NEED simplified answers, rather than the gobbledygook and lies we get out of the current administration.
Oh, I understand that the insurance companies get more business because of Obamacare, after Obama signed the bill into law. As usual, this administration knows what is better for you than you do, by requiring everybody to have insurance and getting taxed if you do not comply. In addition, they established what each policy covered, including things you may not need. The insurance companies were more than happy to participate, as there is a provision in Obamacare where the government will reimburse the insurance companies for any amount over 10% of PROJECTED losses. This provision encouraged the insurance companies to "low ball" initial premiums to get people to sign up. Things are not always as they seem.”
“1) The Republicans failed to "get what they want in healthcare reform" because the Democrats rammed the bill through Congress, and it was signed by Obama without even knowing what was in the law. And, Reid would not even consider any amendments presented by the House. Obamacare has been a disaster, and it is owned by the Democrats and them alone. Any "start over" plan would never be consider by the Senate and Reid. The Democrats say that they want to "fix" Obamacare, but I have not seen any "fixes" come out of the House or Senate, only delays by Obama who thinks he can change the law anytime he wants to.
2) We spent $37.68 billion in 2012 (posted on 12/19/2013) in foreign aid, so I guess that would be a good start to get funds to send illegals back to their home countries. In addition, we have millions of people out of work who would gladly be hired by ICE to identify, roundup and export the illegal immigrants.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 requires:
required employers to attest to their employees' immigration status;
made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants;
legalized certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants
If these requirements were met by current and past administrations, we may not have about 11.5 illegal immigrants yelling for citizenship.
Remember, the government can do anything and everything that they WANT to do. They will find a way.”
anthonylee on Jun 2, 2014 at 19:55:36
“1) . . . and the Republicans watched from the side-lines, with no alternative plan except to say "no" to everything the President attempted to get accomplished; while working to ensure President Obama was a one-term president, like H.W. Shrub. Since it's such a disaster, why are millions and millions of Americans signing up? Tell me how he's changed the written and executed law, give a specific example of how the law was edited from the original.
2) $37.68 million in foreign aid, which was already appropriated to. . . .wait for it. . .wait. . .other FOREIGN AID interests outside of our domestic immigration and security issues - how would that work? But since you're for more government spending and all, by all means add to that and make it an even $40 billion in spending while enlarging the Federal workforce with more ICE agents and border patrols!
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 requires. . . .yeah, tell that to the employers who are still hiring undocumented workers. Find me one, just one who has been prosecuted in a court of law for doing so, while you're at it. "legalized seasonal agricultural" more commonly referred to as migrant workers is already implemented labor law. Where was all of this belly-aching about illegal immigration when Dubya was in office and granting amnesty to thousands of undocumented immigrants?”
“"Obamacare=Romneycare" - For three years, the Democrats gave NO credit for Obamacare to the Republicans, as they were proud to claim Obamacare as their own and theirs alone. Then, came the disastrous roll-out, followed by ruinous results, as the Democrats found out what was really in the bill that they passed in Congress and that was signed into law by Obama. After it was determined that Obamacare was a disaster, the Democrats said, "Obamacare was REALLY based upon a Republican idea."
Answer to your questions:
"With what money?" - We spent $37.68 billion in 2012 (reported 12/19/13) in foreign aid. I guess that giving money to other countries is more important than taking care of our own problems.
"With what force? How would you round them up?" - We have millions of people out of work who would be glad to be hired by ICE and perform this task.
"history of labor" - One of the requirements contained in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was: "legalized certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants...". The labor problem was solved by this act, but it has failed to be enforced by current and past administrations.
"we were all immigrants, at one point." - This argument is getting old and no longer applies, as it is used by Democrats to justify people breaking our laws and getting rewarded with citizenship or a path to citizenship. At some point, you stop being an immigrant and become an AMERICAN.”
maigesheng on May 31, 2014 at 13:31:35
“For three years, the Democrats gave NO credit for Obamacare to the Republicans,
Please dont include me in this crowd. In fact, everyone I knew or talked too was very aware that this was Romney care. Half of the people didnt want it, and half said it was a first step.
Roll out? Was anyone of any seriousness concerned about that for anything other than political reasons??
Results?? Are you honestly going to pretend that the results are in?? Let alone bad??
EVERYONE except Fox news, is now in favor of Obamacare.
The rest of your comment, as if the first part were any more intelligent, was all nonsense and deflection.
Tired of old arguments, eh? I think that is saying something.”
1) Repeal Obamacare and start over with a health care system that serve all of the people, not just what the Democrats want.
2) Send all illegal immigrants back to the country they came from.
maigesheng on May 30, 2014 at 15:59:28
“Case is far from closed.
1. Totally vague and does absolutely nothing as far as providing an alternative, as you were asked to do. Completely ignores that Obamacare=Romneycare
2. How would you possibly do that? With what money? With what force? How would you round them up? Not to mention, please do a little research into the history of labor in this country. Start with the term "Braceros." NOT TO MENTION that we were all immigrants, at one point. Except Native Americans.
But you already know all this.”
Imhotep40 on May 30, 2014 at 11:04:04
“1) How do you "close" a case before you draft the "start over" plan? You know you just answered your own question regarding the failure on the Republicans part to get what they "want" in healthcare reform. . . . .
2) On who's dime should they get sent back? What about all of the employers that need the cheap labor? The simplistic resolution you think is, well, not so.
“Before you get sucked in by the half-truths Kevin has posted here, do a little research. You might find interesting facts. Kevin's only objective is to make the Republicans look "bad", and he has shown that he will say anything to accomplish this. The kicker here is that nothing to do with the VA.”
“You have convinced me. I guess all this stuff about the VA is just another "false" scandal.”
elfish on May 28, 2014 at 15:01:33
“Oh brother! Nobody said it was a false scandal. Read the first sentence of my post again. 1. The extent of the scandal is unknown at this point. Until the IG reports and the investigations are done, we don't how wide spread it is, whether it is just a couple VA facilities or the whole system. 2. You can't solve a problem until you understand the cause. To jump to conclusions and propose solutions based on incomplete information is WORSE than doing nothing at all. 3. There are two scandals: A) Long wait times for appointments and B) covering up the long wait times with falsified documents. While "B" is bad and should be stopped, the root cause of the problem is "A." Long wait times is caused by not having enough doctors and staff to handle the influx new veterans leaving the military. In spite of increasing funding by 150% over the past few years, the number of veterans entering the system has doubled and the number of severely injured has increased by 2500%. 4. In spite of increased funding in 2010, republicans have cut spending in 2011 and 2012 below 2010 levels: 2009 $97.7-billion 2010 $127.2-billion 2011 $125.5-billion (Down from 2010) 2012 $126.8-billion (Down from 2010) 2013 $139.1-billion You can't make appointments for veterans if you don't have the doctors to see the patients. You can't hire the doctors if you don't have the money. Until funding is adequate to meet the demand, the problems will continue. The Republicans have blocked every attempt to increase resources at the VA. For example, in February, Senate Republicans blocked the passage of this bill: http://www.pva.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c... 5. In spite of the scandal, the VA does lots of good things and much better than the civilian system in many areas. But Republicans don't want to fix the VA. They want to destroy it. 6. Richard Burr, the subject of the article, is on record saying that he wants to privatize the VA. That's why he picked a fight with Veterans groups. They stand in the way of privatizing the VA. Burr is another Republican "Chicken Hawk," who never served in the military. Burr claims that the Veterans groups like the American Legion, the VFW, Vietnam Veterans of America and the Paralyzed Veterans aren't doing a good job representing veterans in this country. He claims this was based on their testimony in congress, but Burr skipped their testimony http://www.vva.org/documents/BurrLetter.pdf”
“I did not say that things in the VA has gotten worse BECAUSE of Shinseki. I said that he was RESPONSIBLE, as secretary in charge of the VA. Shinseki, being a retired General, would understand this, but, as I said, this is a concept that liberals fail to grasp.
"...with little to no increase in funding?". - Not quite accurate.
VA funding has increased from $97.7 billion in 2009 to a projected $163.9 billion I=in 2015.
“I sure hope the families of the 40+ vets who died waiting for care see your post. I am sure that it will make them feel a whole lot better. I guess there was not reason to keep false waiting lists, if the VA is so great.”
US Civilian health care is some of the worst in the world: - Worst of G6 countries for supplying Urgent care, - 5th in timely care - Worst in medical errors. - 45th in Infant Mortality - 14th in Heart Attack Survival, is behind Japan, France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Italy, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Canada, Denmark and Germany, - 15th in mortality from preventable diseases behind, France, Japan, Spain, Sweden, Italy, Australia, Canada, Norway, Netherlands, Greece, Germany, Austria, New Zealand, and Denmark. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publ...http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publicatio... 4. I've had dozens of responses from Vets who've had excellent care from the VA. Here is one that I thought was particularly to the point: Edward B. wrote: "I am a BLIND Veteran and there simply is NONE of the rehabilitation services that the VA offers ANYWHERE else in the private sector. There are 16 Blind Rehab Centers, located throughout the Nation and there are ZERO in the private sector. Privatize that and you essentially ELIMINATE all services for blinded Veterans and leave us standing on street corners trying to sell pencils for a living. I support this entire post and agree with it 100%."http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/elfish/richar... Don wrote: "My 86 yr old dad has received excellent care from the VA in Florida as did my Uncle prior to his death. My brother is a 100% disabled vet who receives excellent care from the VA in Ohio. Any fool should understand that problems at one hospital are no reason to "throw out the baby with the bath water" prior to full scale investigation."http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/The_Don_ATL/r... 5. My own experience with the VA has been nothing short of amazing: I've been in the Denver VA system for 12 years and it is the best Health care I've ever received, bar none, hands down. I was in the private health care system for 56 years. In 2002, I signed up in 2002 because my insurance rates were going through the roof and I decided to check out what the VA had to offer. It is 10 times better than anything I received in the private sector.”