Springer "Exchanges are mandatory state or federally run entities"
Mandatory?? Are you planning to use them? I certainly don't need to use them. I'd be very surprised if even half my friends here use them.
Springer: "For God's sake Vt - READ the bloody law."
I did. The law says that all ACA health insurance comes from private health insurance companies. Otherwise, you are just repeating what I wrote.
Cap, it doesn't look like you understand what the exchange is or how it works.
The exchange is simply a set of yellow pages where someone can look up an insurance policy that fits their needs, and also see whether they qualify for Medicaid support. The health insurance, itself, is from one of dozens of insurance companies, such as Blue Cross, Kaiser, or Aetna. The insurance pools are company insurance pools, and they include people signed up through the exchanges, directly from the insurance company, or perhaps even employer provided insurance. The policies are the same. They all meet ACA requirements. The insurance company pools will include both young and old, sick, and healthy. Customers will sign up in many different ways, with the exchanges being just one of them.
Langosta, I agree completely. The US is the only country in he world where companies must provide health insurance and health care for their employees. It puts them at a tremendous competitive disadvantage when competing with companies anywhere else in the world. (And it's another reason why US companies shift work overseas). Providing health insurance for employees is bad enough, but when they have o do it for retirees and employee family members, too, that's a big drain of money that they otherwise use to grow the company.
Now that the exchanges are available and they can usually provide better choices for people than the companies can, why should IBM, UPS, or any other non-insurance company run an insurance program?
What happened at IBM and UPS? The last time I looked (today) everyone who works for IBM or UPS can still get their health insurance through their employer.
Don't you wonder why he didn't offer to do it for $50 million himself? That would have both saved the government a huge amount and made him huge profit, too! That is if he was really right.
What article?? I was just responding to what you wrote. Are you saying that those were not really your words?
Fewer that 1/3 of all Americans are going to want or need to get health insurance on the new exchanges, in any case. They already have insurance through their employer, or, in the case of young people, they already have insurance under their parent's insurance plan. So, that sounds like about the right number of young people who would need to use the exchanges.
The very first security lecture is the one that says that the biggest security threat is people who open their months when they should not do so. No one, whether they are browser writers, DB administrators, or government officials are going to say anything about any security threat, at least not until it's fixed. To do anything else, creates the biggest security threat possible. It would be considered a fireable, or even treasonous action in most cases, as it threatens customers, and in the case of government sites, American citizens and our nation, itself. If you find a problem tell those who can fix it, and then keep your mouth shut.
Why the he!! do you want government officials to talk openly about any existing security threats in our government infrastructure before they are fixed?
Well no budget has been approved since last March, when the FY 2013 budget was passed - 6 months late. This year, again , no budget has been approved so far, now 2 months late. We are again operating under a Congressional continuing resolution to extend last year's budget.
Yes, UPS is dropping health insurance for working spouses who can get insurance through their own employers. The ACA doesn't seem to have much to do with it, as they could have done that before the ACA was even a gleam in Obama's eyes.
Many other employers already do this, and some also add an extra surcharge for spouses who could get insurance through their own employer, but instead chose to get coverage with their spouse. This could come back to bite UPS, if too many of their employees, who now get coverage through their spouse's employer, now get dropped, and must come to UPS for their coverage, as many companies are, and have done the same thing.
Certainly Obama was wrong when he said that you can keep your insurance, as it is. Insurance plans change all the time. They've changed in the past, and they continue to change after the ACA was passed. The only difference now is that everyone must have insurance that meets a certain minimum of coverage, and everyone is making changes in order to make sure that happens, in one way or another.
No, SS, I am luckily not in those shoes. I have insurance through a corporate policy, as 2/3 of Americans do. But, I do know at last a half dozen people who re wearing those shoes, and they are all happy that they will be able to finally get insurance that will cover their needs. Recent news reports have included interviews with others, mostly in blue states, who share those opinions.
Please let us know how those shoes fit you, as you seem to know so much about how adequate they are for you.
Interviews with folks in red state are usually quite different, though. They are currently stuck without any insurance because their states have, so far, rejected the offered Medicaid support for them people. Right now they are left in essentially the same position they were in before: no insurance, and whose only recourse is to use the ER if they are sick, forcing tax payers and those with insurance to pay their way.
Perhaps you don't understand how our government works? Except for certainly spending by the DoD and NSA that require certain security clearances, all government spending "comes to light" when it is discussed in Congress. Obama can't can't spend anything unless and until that spending has been discussed and approved by Congress.
And spending on "rail projects that benefit private companies"? Unlike what? Spending on defense projects that don't benefit private companies?
This may very well turn out to be another red state versus blue state problem. Most people in the blue states, which have accepted the Medicaid support seem to be very happy to get rid of those cheap, mostly useless insurance plans. They are smart enough to know that those cheap plans would do nothing for them or their families if they got sick or hurt. And they are very happy to be able to get much better insurance and coverage, either through new group plans under the ACA, or with Medicaid support, if they can't pay the full bill themselves.
However, in the red states, which have mostly not accepted the Medicaid support, those same people can not use their old, nearly useless plans any more and many of them can not afford the new, better plans either, without the Medicaid support. The big question is whether they will blame Washington for not being able to provide them with the Medicaid help, or will they blame their state leaders who have robbed them of the Medicaid they need, by not accepting the federal aid.
Poor and middle class people in the red and blue states will see this issue very differently. In the states that have accepted Medicaid support, they will be able to get the insurance that they want and need, while in the states without Medicaid support (the red states), they will not be able to get any insurance to cover themselves and their families.
(And SS, that cheap insurance was what they could afford from what was then available, not what they thought they needed, or wanted in most cases. )
I expect that they took the contract because they've examined he environment and the problems. They know how to fix the existing problems, and they can do it in a short time.
If they are correct, this would be a huge marketing win for HPQ. HPQ can then easily and believably tell potential customers that they can fix any hosting and networking problem that they have, and have the best example around. They don't even need the feds to pay them anything in order to win on this one, if they do fix it as they plan to.
youreallyarestupid: Which courts were you or your paper talking about? The caseload statistics for the 12 US district courts are available online, and they generally show a slow, and gradual annual increase in caseloads for all the 12 US district courts, at least as far back as 2008, which is where I stopped looking.
I had though that there might have been a recession caused decrease in cases in 2009 and 2010, but that doesn't seem to be the case, at least not by their caseload statistics.
Perhaps a short history lesson is needed here. For most of our history a simply majority was all that was necessary for the Senate to confirm a the appointment of a judge. It was only in the past few decades that a super majority has been needed.
The filibuster went away after conservative southern democrats used it many times in the 50's and 60's to slow the passage of various civil rights legislation. Until yesterday, no real filibuster was needed. Now, just the threat of a filibuster could stop Senate legislation in it's tracks. And even now the change is just for presidential appointments.
Now the 50+ names that the president has proposed to fill many of the current 93 openings in the 12 US circuit courts and court of appeals can be voted up or down. That's the way it should be. At least for anyone who actually wants our government to do the job given it in the Constitution.
"who we consider" --- Which "we" are you talking about? You & Heinlein?
There are now 3 openings on the 11 seat DC circuit court. 4 of the current 8 DC court judges were appointed by Republican presidents, and 4 by Democrats. There are also 6 "senior" judges on the DC curcuit court, who handle some DC curcuit court cases. Of those 6 "senior" judges, 5 were appointed by Republican presidents, while one of then was appointed by a Democrat. But, I doubt that you can find what party, if any, those judges are registered with.
The DC court is one of 12 US Circuit Courts. There is also the US Court of Appeals. The president appoints judges of all of these courts, and the Senate confirms their appointments. So far, the senate has confirmed 9 judges to these courts, leaving a total of 93 open seats on these 13 US courts. The president has nominated people to fill 51 of these positions.
Speeding up these confirmations will begin to help get these courts working again. The Constitution allows the Senate to make these confirmations with a simple majority. It should never have been changed to anything else.
Yes, Cap, it's funny the way history works,but I don't think that FDR is considered by any as being responsible for the depression and huge national debt that he created. (FDR increased the debt 3 times more than what all the presidents before him created, combined.)
Look at the numbers. The national debt took a very steep turn upwards in GWB's last 2 years. In fact, GW Bush increased the debt by $1.1 trillion in just 100 days, from July 30, 2008 to November 9th. That's an all time record that no president (including Obama) has ever beat. Between September 2007 and October 2008, the debt ceiling was increased 3 times by a total of more than 25%, because of the need to react to the initial effects is the recession.
That steep climb of the debt in Bush's last 2 years has continued into Obama's presidency, although the rate of increase is now less than it was in Bush's last 2 years. If the recession and that steep climb in the debt had not happened, the national debt would almost certainly be somewhere near $8 trillion now, about half of what it actually is. That doubling of the debt is due entirely to the recession.
But, most important, that steep increase in the national debt was not due to anything that Obama or Bush did directly. It was, and is, entirely due to the fact that millions of Americans lost their jobs in the recession and stopped paying income taxes; millions of Americans lost their investments in the stock and investment markets and paid no cap gains taxes; millions of Americans lost money on their houses and paid no cap gains taxes on the sale of their homes.
Now, in retrospect, might Bush or Congress have seen the approaching housing and economic bubble approaching in 2003 and done something about it then? Certainly. but they didn't, so we got the recession, and we are still paying for it.
Ben, we agree on this one. These voter ID laws do nothing about 99% of all voter fraud, which comes from people working in voting places, and from absentee ballots. If they are not there to combat actual voter fraud, then one does need to wonder why those laws were created. Most of the time Republicans worry about government laws getting in people's way when they are doing what they need to do. Evidently not in this case.