End Times and Current Events
August 09, 2020, 11:59:18 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." John 5:39 (KJB)
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

The true cost of Obamacare

Shoutbox
August 08, 2018, 02:38:10 am suzytr says: Hello, any good churches in the Sacto, CA area, also looking in Reno NV, thanks in advance and God Bless you Smiley
January 29, 2018, 01:21:57 am Christian40 says: It will be interesting to see what happens this year Israel being 70 years as a modern nation may 14 2018
October 17, 2017, 01:25:20 am Christian40 says: It is good to type Mark is here again!  Smiley
October 16, 2017, 03:28:18 am Christian40 says: anyone else thinking that time is accelerating now? it seems im doing days in shorter time now is time being affected in some way?
September 24, 2017, 10:45:16 pm Psalm 51:17 says: The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the league rulebook. It states: “The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. “During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”
September 20, 2017, 04:32:32 am Christian40 says: "The most popular Hepatitis B vaccine is nothing short of a witch’s brew including aluminum, formaldehyde, yeast, amino acids, and soy. Aluminum is a known neurotoxin that destroys cellular metabolism and function. Hundreds of studies link to the ravaging effects of aluminum. The other proteins and formaldehyde serve to activate the immune system and open up the blood-brain barrier. This is NOT a good thing."
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-11-new-fda-approved-hepatitis-b-vaccine-found-to-increase-heart-attack-risk-by-700.html
September 19, 2017, 03:59:21 am Christian40 says: bbc international did a video about there street preaching they are good witnesses
September 14, 2017, 08:06:04 am Psalm 51:17 says: bro Mark Hunter on YT has some good, edifying stuff too.
September 14, 2017, 04:31:26 am Christian40 says: i have thought that i'm reaping from past sins then my life has been impacted in ways from having non believers in my ancestry.
September 11, 2017, 06:59:33 am Psalm 51:17 says: The law of reaping and sowing. It's amazing how God's mercy and longsuffering has hovered over America so long. (ie, the infrastructure is very bad here b/c for many years, they were grossly underspent on. 1st Tim 6:10, the god of materialism has its roots firmly in the West) And remember once upon a time ago when shacking up b/w straight couples drew shock awe?

Exodus 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
View Shout History
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The true cost of Obamacare  (Read 12064 times)
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21648



View Profile
« Reply #30 on: April 08, 2013, 11:08:04 am »

ObamaCare takes friendly fire

Delays in implementing popular pieces of ObamaCare are hurting it with Democrats.

Ahead of an election year in which Republicans promise to make healthcare an issue again, Democrats are criticizing the White House for delaying policies that could help build support for the unpopular law.

Democrats complained this week about a one-year delay in a key program designed to help small businesses — a central selling point for the healthcare law that now won’t be in place when voters head to the polls next year.

“Senate Republicans will have the opportunity to campaign against Obamacare's rising health care costs, burdensome paperwork and broken promises and could use it to motivate voters against Democrat candidates, especially vulnerable ones in red states,” Republican strategist Ron Bonjean said.

HHS has delayed by one year a provision that would have allowed small businesses in most states to choose from multiple policies for their workers. Although a handful of states will see increased competition next year, most will have just one plan to choose from until 2015.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) told The New York Times the delay will “prolong and exacerbate health care costs that are crippling 29 million small businesses.”

That is one of the main reasons for this...You voted for it, now you own it

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/292157-obamacares-new-enemy-friendly-fire#ixzz2Pt9lI0k1
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: April 08, 2013, 11:28:00 am »

Quote
“Senate Republicans will have the opportunity to campaign against Obamacare's rising health care costs, burdensome paperwork and broken promises and could use it to motivate voters against Democrat candidates, especially vulnerable ones in red states,” Republican strategist Ron Bonjean said.

Hate to say it, but too little, too late - they should have thought about doing so in LAST YEAR'S election(yeah, I know elections are rigged, but just saying). Thank you Bush/Cheney and the Jesuitical "moral majority" for giving us 8 years of Obama!

Quote
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) told The New York Times the delay will “prolong and exacerbate health care costs that are crippling 29 million small businesses.”

Having lived in Louisiana for a good while, I'm familiar with Landrieu - comes from a prominent New Orleans political family(her brother Mitch served as Lt. Governor, and now Mayor, and her father Moon was Mayor I think). Without going into all of the details, she pretty much won b/c of voter fraud in the greater New Orleans area. NOLA is the last district to count the votes in every political race, and it looked like her opponent Woody Jenkins had it locked up in the 1996 race. When all was said and done, Landrieu squeaked out the win, and Jenkins pulled an Al "sour grapes" Gore. And then in the 2002 Senate race - the current Family Research Council President Tony Perkins ran in the GOP Primaries, but Suzzie Terrell was considered the favorite to challenge Landrieu. Nonetheless then-governor Mike Foster endorsed Perkins, throwing everything into confusion among the GOP(ultimately tipping the election to Landrieu when all was said and done).

Both Jenkins and Perkins are Council for National Policy members - which pretty much sums it up right there, as you can see how this dog and pony show was rigged from the beginning. So no surprise Landrieu is doing what her puppetmasters are telling her to.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: April 12, 2013, 09:02:54 am »

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/10/obama-budget-adds-domestic-same-sex-partners-to-obamacare/
4/10/13
Obama budget adds domestic same-sex partners to Obamacare

CNN White House Producer Adam Aigner-Treworgy   

Washington (CNN) – Buried deep inside President Obama's 2014 budget released on Wednesday is a new proposal to expand federal health insurance benefits to same-sex domestic partners.

Framed as a measure to reduce the deficit, the proposal would amend the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program beginning in 2015 to add a "self plus one" enrollment option in addition to the "self" and "family" options. Like the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act that the administration has endorsed in prior budgets, this new FEHB formulation would work within the current legal constraints of the Defense of Marriage Act by adding a new classification for additional enrollees beyond family.

Currently, the Office of Personnel Management is legally prevented from providing coverage to same-sex domestic partners due to both the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act and the Defense of Marriage Act.

The OPM website informs curious federal employees that the FEHBA "limits health insurance coverage to spouses and children of federal employees," and "DOMA further limits spousal benefits eligibility to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

According to language in the budget, the proposed changes would allow the OPM to contract with "modern types of health plans rather than being limited to the current four statutorily-defined plans reflective of the 1950s insurance market."

"The health insurance marketplace has changed significantly since the FEHBP was enacted in 1959, and the current governing statute leaves little flexibility for the program to evolve with the changing market," the budget reads.

In a fact sheet released along with the budget, the White House claimed that these changes would "align the FEHB program with best practices in the private sector as larger employers competing for talent are increasingly offering domestic partner benefits."

The budget also proposes other changes to the federal benefits program that would allow OPM to negotiate separate contracts for pharmacy benefits and adjust health insurance premiums based on whether the enrollee smokes or enrolls in a "wellness program."

If the president's budget is enacted into law, the administration estimates that these proposed changes would save $8.4 billion over 10 years, but enactment remains unlikely as it would require support from House Republicans, who've already passed a budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: April 30, 2013, 03:29:46 pm »

‘Obamacare’ Poll Finds 42% of Americans Unaware It’s Law
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/obamacare-poll-finds-42-of-americans-unaware-its-law/
4/30/13

A new poll finds that many Americans are confused about the health care overhaul legislation commonly called “Obamacare.”

The Kaiser Family Foundation released results of a non-partisan study today finding more than 40 percent did not even know the law was in place.

“Four in ten Americans (42%) are unaware that the ACA [Affordable Care Act] is still the law of the land,” the report says, “including 12 percent who believe the law has been repealed by Congress, 7 percent who believe it has been overturned by the Supreme Court and 23 percent who say they don’t know enough to say what the status of the law is.

The survey showed public opinion on Obamacare is at its second-lowest rating in the past two years.

Less than half – 40 percent – of adults viewed the ACA favorably, whereas 35 percent said they viewed it unfavorably. Another 24 percent said they did not know or refused to answer.

Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, one of the original crafters of the bill, earlier this month predicted a chaotic implementation process for the Affordable Care Act. “I just see a huge train wreck coming down,” Baucus, D-Mont., said.

The president today defended his health care plan against that claim.

“I think that any time you’re implementing something big, there is going to be people who are nervous and anxious about is it going to get done until it’s actually done,” he told reporters.

He went on to say those who would have trouble with implementation were the roughly 48 million Americans who are uninsured to begin with, a minority of the population.

“For the 85 to 90 percent of Americans who already have health insurance, this thing’s already happened, and their only impact is that their insurance is stronger, better, more secure than it was before,” President Obama said. “Full stop. That’s it. Now they don’t have to worry about anything else.”

Recognizing one confusing aspect of the law, the Department of Health and Human Services today made applying to enter the insurance market through the Affordable Care Act a little easier.

HHS  today released new applications for individuals and adults looking to get health insurance. Officials cut the forms down from 21 pages to seven pages for a family and three pages for an individual.

The applications ask nothing about medical history, beyond whether the applicant or a family member is pregnant and whether they have a condition that “causes limitations in activities … like bathing, dressing [and] daily chores.”

Instead, they resemble tax forms, inquiring about income, Social Security numbers and employment history. They also ask for contact information and race-ethnicity.

The application for families says members of the family who do not require health coverage do not have to list immigration status or Social Security numbers.

President Obama touted the new forms as one of the “refinements” his administration has made with respect to the Affordable Care Act in recent months.

“The challenge is that, you know, setting up a market-based system, basically an online marketplace where you can go on and sign up and figure out what kind of insurance you can afford and figuring out how to get the subsidies, that’s still a big complicated piece of business,” Obama told reporters at a news briefing the morning the new application was released.

“But having said all that, we’ve got a great team in place. We are pushing very hard to make sure that we’re hitting all the deadlines and the benchmarks.”

Three years after the president signed the bill into law, some Republicans continue to oppose it, holding steadfast in their promises to repeal it, while others have given up the fight.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.,  introduced a bill last week that would have preserved some parts of Obamacare, but it died as other members of his party refused to support it.

“I want to repeal Obamacare completely,” Rep. Martha Roby, R-Ala., tweeted Monday night, “and I think efforts to exempt Congress are hypocrisy at its worst,” she added, referring to a Politico story suggesting that members of Congress might find a way to exclude themselves from the president’s health care overhaul, which they later rebutted.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #34 on: April 30, 2013, 04:07:13 pm »

Congress and Senate already has it's own health care. Had it for decades and far cheaper and with many more benefits that the American people don't get. So what's their point?

Let the people have the exact same coverage for the same price as Congress. Yeah right!  Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21648



View Profile
« Reply #35 on: May 03, 2013, 11:38:07 am »

SC House Approves Bill Criminalizing Enforcement Of ‘Obamacare’

 The South Carolina House approved a bill Wednesday criminalizing the implementation of President Obama’s health care law in the state.

The Republican-controlled House voted 65-39 on the Freedom of Health Care ProtectionAct.

The act renders “null and void certain unconstitutional laws enacted by the Congress of the United States taking control over the health insurance industry and mandating that individuals purchase health insurance under threat of penalty.”

“This kind of victory occurs when the grassroots across the State come together and coalesce,” Chris Lawton, spokesman for the Greenville Tea Party, told The Greenville Post. “I could not be prouder.”

The bill declares “Obamacare” unconstitutional – despite the Supreme Court ruling last year that the Affordable Health Care Act was constitutional — and that there will be criminal penalties for enforcing the law.

Gov. Nikki Haley earlier this year said that the state will not implement the nation’s health care law.

“Connecticut expanded early under ‘Obamacare’ and just reported a $190 million Medicaid deficit – in spite of subjecting their citizens to a massive tax increase,” Haley said during the State of the State address. “California just raised taxes in part to cover their Medicaid deficit and yet needs $350 million more to pay for ‘Obamacare’ next year. That’s not us. That’s not South Carolina

rest: http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2013/05/03/sc-house-approves-bill-criminalizing-enforcement-of-obamacare/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: May 03, 2013, 11:45:28 am »

We will see where this goes - I mean it's not like every state with a Republican governor is doing this, right?(ie-there's no law in Texas like this) Pt being that there could be some kind of Hegelian Dialectic/war of words going on here.

And besides, and SC were really serious, they need to get rid of evolution out of their public schools, remove Mark Sanford from running for national political office, expose Strom Thurmond being a 33rd Degree Freemason(instead of holding him up on a pedestial), etc.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #37 on: May 03, 2013, 05:15:26 pm »

Well, the world, not worshiping God, are compelled to hoist somebody up on a pedestal, be it a gold calf, or a racist politician.

Forget evolution, public schools funded by the government needs to go. Government, as the Constitution is written, has zero part in education. None. Government also has no rights to meddle in medicine either, and so it goes with countless "government agencies".

They found they didn't really need to change the Constitution, or even change the projected form of US government, all they needed to do was change the public's day to day way of life, their way of thinking and acceptance, which in turn changes their habits and dependencies. They needed to "soften up" their target through fear and intimidation for the eventual big blow that government knows full well the public will not take lightly. I think the level of intensity depends on just how soft the public has become.

It's been an illusion all along simply because of unbelief their eyes remain uncircumcised.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: May 07, 2013, 05:17:05 pm »

Brooklyn Federal Court Building On Lockdown After Anthrax Threat
5/7/13
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/05/court-lockdown-anthrax-threat.php

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, located in Brooklyn, was on lockdown shortly after 4:00 p.m. Tuesday afternoon after an anthrax threat, a court official and a security personnel for the court confirmed to TPM.

A source in the courthouse passed along an email from the court clerk informing court personnel of the threat.

“An envelope was received with an anthrax threat and a white power and was released in the main clerk’s office on the first floor. Only one staff member came into direct contact with the powder,” the email read.

“At this time and until we get an all clear from the USMS, no one can leave that area once they have entered. It is very important that no one enter that space (mail room, file room, docketing, intake, personnel, etc) and that the judges’ elevator on the Adams Street side of the building not be used to exit on the first floor.”

The USMS is the U.S. Marshal’s Service, which, among other things, provides security for the federal courts. (Update: A USMS official confirmed the anthrax threat and said it was under investigation. The official said there have been “no injuries or illnesses.”)

The source said she saw a New York City Fire Department ambulance, three police cars and a firetruck outside the window of her courthouse office.

Earlier Tuesday, the same courthouse was the scene of oral arguments in a high-profile case in which the Obama administration is facing off against reproductive rights advocates over access to Plan B, known as the morning-after pill.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: May 08, 2013, 12:04:03 pm »

First off, I don't endorse Obamacare(for obvious reasons). With that being said, was reading this news article over Obama losing a court battle with Tyndale House Publishers over the HHS mandate.

Yes, it's good news that the courts sided against Obama with this particular case - but with that being said, look at all of the (spiritual)junk Tyndale promotes...
http://tyndale.com/00_Home/index.php

The NLT "study bible"?(This bible is WORSE than the NIV!) Beth Moore? CS Lewis? And Churchianity is calling this a "big victory"?

Bible publisher wins court battle over contraceptive mandate
http://tyndale.com/00_Home/search.php

James 2:1  My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
Jas 2:2  For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
Jas 2:3  And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
Jas 2:4  Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
Jas 2:5  Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
Jas 2:6  But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
Jas 2:7  Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #40 on: May 08, 2013, 03:55:09 pm »

"The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower [is] servant to the lender." Proverbs 22:7 (KJB)
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21648



View Profile
« Reply #41 on: May 15, 2013, 11:47:17 am »

Obamacare to Increase Premiums Nearly 100 Percent

A new report released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee reveals Obamacare will increase health insurance premiums by an average of nearly 100 percent. Some premiums could rise by 400 percent.
 
The committee cited internal documents from some of the nation’s largest health insurance companies.
 
“The average yearly cost for a new customer in the individual market grows from $1,896 to $3,708—a $1,812 cost increase,” according to the report.
 

Affordability. It was a central premise – and promise – of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) when the law was debated in Congress throughout 2009 and signed into law on March 23, 2010. In his remarks that day, President Barack Obama stated: ‘This legislation will also lower costs for families and businesses…’ Over three years later, the White House continues to state that the PPACA will lower costs. [...]
 
The … report chronicles the massive premium increases awaiting Americans when full implementation of the PPACA occurs in eight months, definitively contradicting the promise that the law will lower costs. As this report demonstrates, consumers purchasing health insurance on the individual market may face premium increases of nearly 100 percent on average, with potential highs eclipsing 400 percent. Meanwhile, small businesses can expect average premium increases in the small group market of up to 50 percent, with potential highs over 100 percent.

http://freebeacon.com/obamacare-to-increase-premiums-nearly-100-percent/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #42 on: May 15, 2013, 03:32:28 pm »

A rise of 100% on something people can't pay in the first place is a moot point!  Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: May 21, 2013, 10:16:02 pm »

YOU ARE CRAZY: New Psychiatric Guidelines Target Hoarding, Child Temper Tantrums, and a Host of Other “Illnesses”
5/21/13
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/you-are-crazy-new-psychiatric-guidelines-target-hoarding-disorder-child-temper-tantrums-and-a-host-of-other-illnesses_05212013

It’s not a stretch to suggest that Americans are over medicated. In 2011 doctors across the nation wrote an astounding four billion medical prescriptions, amounting to an average of 13 prescriptions for every  man, woman and child in the United States.

In the next few weeks the American Psychiatric Associations is releasing their updated fifth version their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5); the so-called ‘bible’ of psychiatric diagnoses. The new manual promises to take mental illness and the use of prescription drugs to a whole new level.

You may not be considered “crazy” or “mentally ill” today, but under the new guidelines experts say half of us will be diagnosed with a psychiatric condition in the future.

Quote
The odds will probably be greater than 50 percent, according to the new manual, that you’ll have a mental disorder in your lifetime.



The increasing number of disorders comes about because some “problems” that were not previously considered to be mental illness were reclassified as such by their inclusion in the DSM—and it is the DSM that functionally defines mental illness in the United States.

You see, in the DSM-5 the definitions for mental illness have been expanded to include a whole host of new symptoms and conditions.

For example, under the new guidelines if your 6 to 18 year-old child throws a temper tantrum from time to time or has a mood swing, a psychiatrist could diagnose the condition as a “Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder” requiring professional treatment. Keep in mind that in psychiatry “professional treatment” almost always means prescription drugs.

Are you over the age of 55 and have “senior moments” like forgetting where you put your keys? If so, then in all likelihood you have a neurocognitive disorder.

Do you stockpile food, supplies or other items in anticipation of a disaster? If so, you may have what’s called an obsessive compulsive hoarding disorder.

Quote
“The reality shows have raised awareness, but they tend to sensationalize the patients, and they rarely talk about treatment.”

“The big change,” Dr. Saxena said, “will be an official recognition of hoarding as an important neuropsychic disorder that will increase screening, increase detection and diagnosis, and refer patients in for treatment.”

While the new hoarding guidelines don’t specifically target “preparedness,” the fact is that some ‘professionals’ have already suggested that if you have any level of anxiety about the possibility of a major catastrophe, or your motivation for preparing for unforeseen events includes a distrust of the government, then you’ve got psychological problems.

Now, with the DSM-5, they can officially diagnose you as crazy
.

Dr. Allen Frances, the author of Saving Normal, says that the new requirements will, ”turn everyday anxiety, eccentricity, forgetting and bad eating habits into mental disorders.”

The changes being introduced by the DSM-5 are nothing short of a sweeping overhaul of our mental health care system, and they will have effects that many experts can’t even fathom. But those behind the DSM, who work very closely with government experts, know exactly what they’re doing.

Let’s connect the dots a little bit to get an idea of how this is going to have a direct impact on your life in the very near future.

Under the new regulations set forth by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, certain groups of Americans like school children, seniors, those on government health plans, active-duty military personnel, and veterans will be required to submit to mental health screenings.

Quote
Page 1137 of the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides grants for the operation of school-based health centers required to include “mental health and substance abuse disorder assessments” for children and adolescents.

On page 1191 is found a section on Mental Health Screening that refers to a program called “Healthy Aging, Living Well”. Persons ages 55-64 are being targeted for screening activities that can include “mental health/behavioral health and substance use disorders.”

Obamacare requires mental health services for many other groups.

These include Medicaid recipients, addicts, mothers with postpartum depression, the elderly, and soldiers. There’s even has a section called “Mental Health in Small Businesses” which awards grants to small businesses willing to provide workplace wellness programs that encourage “healthy lifestyles, healthy eating, increased physical activity and improved mental health.”

Are you starting to see where this is going?

You’ll be forced by your child’s school, by the government, and even your private employer to be  involuntarily screened. And the psychiatrists who’ll be performing the diagnoses will be utilizing the criteria outlined in the DSM-5.

According to the afforementioned statistics, there’s a 50% chance that those being screened will be found to have some type of mental health condition.

But that’s just the beginning
.

As we know, once diagnosed, failure to take the treatment (e.g. medication) prescribed could then be deemed unlawful behavior, especially in the case of children.

Not possible in America? Think again:

Quote
Earlier this year, administrators from the Berne-Knox-Westerlo school district called Albany County Child Protective Services, alleging child abuse when the Carrolls said they wanted to take Kyle off the drug.

As a result, the Carrolls are now on a statewide list of alleged child abusers, and they have been thrust into an Orwellian family court battle to clear their name and to ensure their child isn’t removed from their home.  “It’s beyond the point of whether he should be on it. Now it’s the point of them telling us what we’re going to do,” said Michael Carroll. “They’re telling me how to raise my child.”



“The schools are now using child protective services to enforce their own desires and their own policies,” said David Lansner, a New York City lawyer who has seen cases similar to the Carrolls’. “The parents’ authority is being undermined when people have to do what some public official wants,” Lansner added. “This thing is so scary,”

It’s already happening, and with nearly 4 million children every year being (mis)diagnosed with ADHD, we can expect the numbers to rise significantly under the new DSM guidelines.

It’s important to understand, however, that they’re not just targeting our children. They’re coming after all of us.

The DSM-5, coupled with Obama Care legislation, will allow the government unprecedented control over lives.

One such example is the targeting of America’s gun owners. Legislation is in the works in many states, as well as the U.S. Congress, that would require mental health screenings for firearms ownership. Should these bills pass, then about half of America’s gun owners would immediately lose their right to bear arms for any manner of “disorders” that could include stress, anxiety, depressed mood or even poor eating habits!


And while gun control proponents would applaud the victory, what they fail to understand is that by green-lighting such a government intrusion, they are setting themselves up for future legislation that may restrict their own rights for activities that may include maintaining employment or caring for their children.

Once a diagnoses is made the government will then have the ability to enforce it at the barrel of a gun.

If your child is diagnosed with ADHD or separation anxiety disorder, and you refuse to feed them their prescription cocktail, then the government will step in and take your children under the guise of protecting them… from you!

Likewise, you may one day be forced to be screened by your employer and found to be mentally ill (remember, 50/50 shot!). If you refuse the professional treatment that’s recommended, you could lose your job as a result. And because the Department of Homeland Security has been busy creating a Domestic No-Work List all prospective employers will know of your condition and your refusal to seek professional treatment.

The possibilities, now that the door has been opened, are endless.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21648



View Profile
« Reply #44 on: May 31, 2013, 05:26:46 pm »

Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146%

Last week, the state of California claimed that its version of Obamacare’s health insurance exchange would actually reduce premiums. “These rates are way below the worst-case gloom-and-doom scenarios we have heard,” boasted Peter Lee, executive director of the California exchange. But the data that Lee released tells a different story: Obamacare, in fact, will increase individual-market premiums in California by as much as 146 percent.

One of the most serious flaws with Obamacare is that its blizzard of regulations and mandates drives up the cost of insurance for people who buy it on their own.

rest: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: May 31, 2013, 05:39:32 pm »

California's the biggest state in the union, right? Not sure how big the California economy is compared to other world countries, but given its size it could rank right up there somewhere among the world's economies.

Pt being that this union will likely go where CA goes - if CA goes down like this, then it will take the rest of the country's economy right down with it.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: June 12, 2013, 11:21:43 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/ariz-health-care-fight-aligns-obama-ex-rival-224234653.html
Ariz. health care fight aligns Obama with ex-rival
6/12/13

PHOENIX (AP) — The Arizona Legislature was poised to pass a state budget and proposed Medicaid expansion that has divided the state's Republican leadership.

Lawmakers expect to hold a final vote on the budget and health care plan Thursday morning amid opposition from conservatives who have traditionally controlled state government.

The Senate advanced the proposals with little debate Wednesday evening, and the House was prepared to do the same.

The action means Republican Gov. Jan Brewer is close to securing a huge victory that will provide health insurance to an additional 300,000 poor Arizonans by embracing a signature part of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law.

Brewer was one of the most vocal governors opposing the Affordable Care Act but acknowledged in January that it was the law of the land and would help Arizonans.

During the floor debate, Brewer's allies largely refused to answer questions or discuss provisions in the proposed budget, drawing rebukes from conservatives who warned of unchecked government. They proposed more than 50 amendments but didn't have the votes to stop the Medicaid expansion or the budget deal.

"How are you not embarrassed for yourself?" said Republican Rep. J.D. Mesnard of Chandler, an opponent of the expansion. "Is anyone going to stand up and give a defense?"

Lawmakers aligned with Brewer said they saw no reason to hear out the opposition.

"It's really just to speed up the process," said Rep. Bob Robson, R-Chandler, who was part of the coalition pushing the budget deal. "Otherwise you'd have 25 members asking questions and it would take forever."

With little notice, Brewer called lawmakers into a special session late Tuesday, allowing moderates to take over both chambers by voting to suspend normal rules and to limit debate on the budget.

The Medicaid plan would cover people making between 100 percent and 138 percent of the federal poverty level and restore coverage to more than 100,000 childless adults who lost Medicaid coverage because of a state budget crunch. About 1.3 million Arizonans already are covered by the state's plan.

Brewer's supporters introduced Tuesday an $8.8 billion budget similar to the plan approved by the Senate last month. It will not include a big "economic development" tax-cut plan backed by House Speaker Andy Tobin.

"We have a huge economic incentive in this budget — it's called Medicaid," Democratic Minority Leader Chad Campbell said. "That's a $2 billion economic incentive program right there."

Senate President Andy Biggs, who has fought the Medicaid expansion for months, implored Democrats and moderate Republicans to allow for debate after he was sidelined by Brewer's supporters late Wednesday.

"Some don't want to have discussion and think I am trying to embarrass them. I am not trying to embarrass them. This is a massive bill," he said on the floor.

As Republicans grew increasingly irate, Brewer's office released a statement that sought to distance her from the federal health care law that allows for the Medicaid expansion.

"Arizona's Medicaid program, known as AHCCCS, has existed for three decades ... going back to President Obama's college days," wrote spokesman Matthew Benson in an email. "AHCCCS is not the Affordable Care Act. It is not ObamaCare. It is the nation's gold standard in terms of cost-effective Medicaid programs."

Biggs and Tobin both argue that the federal government is likely to go back on its promise to fund the Medicaid expansion and point to Washington's huge debt.

After adjournment Tuesday, Biggs and Tobin released an angry statement rife with insults toward Brewer: "We are frustrated and bewildered by her overt hostility and disregard for the budgetary process which was already well under way."

A calmer Tobin on Wednesday took some of the blame, saying he let his efforts to change Brewer's Medicaid proposal linger too long before dumping them.

"I probably should have reached a conclusion that my option for Medicaid was not really being taken seriously a lot earlier," Tobin said. "My mistake was I probably overestimated that there was a chance to really come to an agreement on the Medicaid that was more acceptable."
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: June 24, 2013, 05:03:35 pm »

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/307373-sebelius-nfl-might-help-promote-obamacare-enrollment
6/24/13
Sebelius in talks with NFL on promoting ObamaCare insurance plans

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Monday she is in talks with the NFL to help promote new insurance options under ObamaCare.

Sebelius said the football league has been "very actively and enthusiastically engaged" in discussions about a partnership to encourage people to enroll in newly available insurance plans.

"We're having active discussions right now with a variety of sports affiliates" about both paid advertising and partnerships to encourage enrollment, Sebelius told reporters.

HHS is reportedly also in talks with the NBA to promote the law.

Partnerships with sports organizations are especially promising to HHS because the department hopes large numbers of young, healthy men will enroll in the law's new coverage options.

Attracting young, healthy people will help keep premiums from rising dramatically once the law begins offering new protections for more expensive patients — namely, banning insurance companies from discriminating against people with preexisting conditions.

The Boston Red Sox filmed a commercial promoting Massachusetts's healthcare law when it took effect in 2006.

"We know the Red Sox were incredibly effective in Massachusetts … so it's a logical place to go," Sebelius said.

Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: June 27, 2013, 01:19:56 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/gay-couples-now-due-receive-benefits-under-obamacare-162659730.html
Some gay couples now due to receive benefits under 'Obamacare'
6/27/13

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court's ruling on Wednesday that same-sex couples are eligible for federal benefits will mean more gays and lesbians can reap the benefits of President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul that take effect January 1, advocates say.

In a landmark decision, the court effectively legalized same-sex marriage in California and struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied same-sex couples federal benefits such as healthcare.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act already bans discrimination in health coverage based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The law, known as "Obamacare," was passed in 2010 and upheld by the Supreme Court nearly a year ago.

With the Supreme Court decision, same-sex couples who live in states that recognize them can apply for the law's tax subsidies, meant to offset healthcare costs, as a couple rather than as two individuals, said Tim Jost, a health law expert and law professor at Washington and Lee University. This will help the law reach more people, he added.

Some couples will be newly eligible for spousal protections under Medicaid, a federally funded program that provides care to low-income parents, children, seniors and people with disabilities. It covers more than 62 million Americans, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

If couples decide to file taxes jointly, though, they may no longer qualify for Medicaid or tax credits because their combined income will put them above the level for eligibility.

In the District of Columbia or one of 12 states that have legalized gay marriage - where about 40 percent of same-sex couples live - applying for health coverage through federal employers and the exchanges will be as simple for them as it is for heterosexual couples, said Kellan Baker, associate director for LGBT progress at the liberal Center for American Progress.

But outside of those borders, it is more complicated.

"We know from the IRS there's a lack of clarity about how exactly marriages are recognized across state lines," Baker said. "There's the legal question of, does the IRS consider you married if you're living outside of the state that recognized your marriage?"

Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which the court did not take up, does not require states to recognize gay marriages that took place in other states.

Despite the uncertainty, many advocacy groups lauded the court's decision because it will improve access to healthcare for many gay couples.

Obamacare establishes state and federal exchanges so people can explore all of their health coverage options in one place.

States that run their own exchange programs decide who qualifies as family members, but the court ruling means that now the 26 federally run exchanges "have no bar to recognizing and including same-sex spouses as protected family members," said Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

The Supreme Court ruling will also enable older same-sex couples to receive marital benefits under Social Security and Medicare, Services and Advocacy for GLBT Elders said in a statement.

"Many of these federal benefits, from Social Security to Medicare, are founded on the presumption of marriage," the group said, "yet (the Defense of Marriage Act) denied access to these benefits even to legally married same-sex couples."
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: June 27, 2013, 05:44:38 pm »

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/27/19174974-federal-court-says-obamacare-birth-control-mandate-likely-to-be-struck-down?lite
6/27/13
Federal court says Obamacare birth control mandate likely to be struck down

A federal appeals court sided Thursday with a company challenging President Barack Obama's health care reform law, saying its requirement that for-profit companies pay for birth control is likely to be overturned as a violation of religious protections.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver waived millions of dollars of fines against Hobby Lobby Inc. and a subsidiary company, Mardel Christian Stores, which have refused to comply with the mandate while they seek an exemption under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA.

The companies, which close all their stores on Sundays, say they are founded on "honoring the Lord in a manner consistent with Biblical principles."

"We hold that Hobby Lobby and Mardel are entitled to bring claims under RFRA, have established a likelihood of success that their rights under this statute are substantially burdened by the contraceptive-coverage requirement, and have established an irreparable harm," the court said in a 165-page ruling, which sent the companies' case back to the U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City, which had previously turned down the companies' request.

Many religious organizations are challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which the Supreme Court upheld exactly one year ago Friday. They argue that the law's mandate that employers pay for birth control as part of required health care benefits violates their religious beliefs.

In the case the 10th Circuit addressed Thursday, Hobby Lobby — which has more than 13,000 full-time employees at more than 500 stores in 41 states — seeks to extend the same argument to public, for-profit companies, as well.

In arguments this week, the Obama administration contended that such an exemption would render the provision meaningless.

"The context of RFRA makes it abundantly clear that Congress did not give for-profit corporations the right to evade federal regulation in the name of their shareholders' religious freedom," the Justice Department argued this week.

"As Congress understood, extending religious exemptions to for-profit corporations would impermissibly advance religion to the detriment of the employees, who are autonomous human beings with rights and beliefs of their own," it said.

If Hobby Lobby eventually prevails, it could open the door for several other prominent U.S. corporations that call themselves biblically based to seek similar exemptions.

Other major companies led by deeply conservative families or boards include Tyson Foods, one of the world's largest poultry processors with 107,000 U.S.-based employees; ServiceMaster, parent of such cleaning brands as TruGreen ChemLawn and Terminix, which has 58,000 full-time corporate and franchise employees; and Chick-fil-A, which operates more than 1,600 U.S. restaurants.

Kyle Duncan, general counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented Hobby Lobby in the case, called Thursday's ruling "a tremendous victory not only for (Hobby Lobby), but also for many other religious business owners who should not have to forfeit their faith to make a living."

But Barry Lynn, executive director of the nonprofit advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called it "the worst kind of religious oppression."

"This court has taken a huge step toward handing bosses and company owners a blank check to meddle in the private medical decisions of their workers," he said.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: June 27, 2013, 05:54:51 pm »

For the record, I do NOT endorse Obamacare for obvious reasons, but...

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver waived millions of dollars of fines against Hobby Lobby Inc. and a subsidiary company, Mardel Christian Stores, which have refused to comply with the mandate while they seek an exemption under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA.

Has anyone been in Mardel? I have many times - aside from one small section with books exposing false religions, occults(ie-freemasonry), etc, 90% of their products go AGAINST what the word of God says. They sell a lot of New Age books, corrupted bible versions(and the only KJV bibles they have pretty much are ones from Zondervan and Thomas Nelson), Christian Rock/CCM, t-shirts where they make occult symbols look "Christian", toys and other "fun" stuff for kids, their end times books are written by the likes of John Hagee/Joel Rosenberg/David Jeremiah etc, "financial guru" Dave Ramsey stuff, the list goes on.

Again, I don't endorse Obamacare, but this is one of those "be ye angry, and sin not..." moments for me b/c they're no different from other secular businesses that have to comply with Obamacare, but en yet are getting a free lunch despite all the spiritual junk they are putting out.

If anyone thinks this is a big victory for Christianity, then think again.

2Cor 5:1  For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2Co 5:2  For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:

Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #51 on: June 28, 2013, 03:25:47 am »

Quote
If Hobby Lobby eventually prevails, it could open the door for several other prominent U.S. corporations that call themselves biblically based to seek similar exemptions.

As they should be able to.

They talk about not discriminating against gays, race, religion, but the government is all but forcing religious institutions to violate their own religion because some don't believe in their religion. Considering the Constitution, that's a problem.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: June 28, 2013, 03:18:34 pm »

Not saying I'm 100% sure about this, but look where this is going...the ole Hegelian Dialectic good cop/bad cop route, where the bad cop is Obama, and the good cop is the RCC. Ultimately, people who take sides will be siding with the enemy either way. And notice how they almost always lump Catholics with Christians.

6/28/13
Obama's Final Word: Catholics Must Buy/Provide Coverage for Abortion Drugs - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamas-final-word-catholics-must-buyprovide-coverage-abortion-drugs#sthash.NGJSmw5I.dpuf

CNSNews.com) - The Department of Health and Human Services today released the final text of the final adjustments to the Obamacare regulation that requires virtually all health-care plans to provide cost-free coverage for sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.

Catholics and Evangelical Christians have objected to the regulation, arguing that it violates their First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. The Catholic Church teaches that sterilization, contraception and abortion are all intrinsically immoral. Evangelical Christians believe that abortion takes an innocent human life and is thus wrong.

The final regulation issued today provides no accommodations at all for individual Catholics and other Christians who morally object to the mandate. It also makes no accommodations for private for-profit employers who morally object to the mandate. Catholic and other Christian individuals in the United States will now be forced by the Obama administration to get coverage for sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion--whether they want it or not. The Obama administration's mandate says:

They have no choice.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2013, 03:51:45 pm by BornAgain2 » Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: June 28, 2013, 03:49:38 pm »

^^ more details

http://news.yahoo.com/final-govt-birth-control-rule-faith-groups-154455085.html
Final gov't birth control rule for faith groups
6/28/13

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration issued its final compromise Friday for religiously affiliated charities, hospitals and other nonprofits that object to covering birth control in their employee health plans.

The Health and Human Services Department said the final plan simplifies how insurers provide the coverage separately from faith-based groups and gives religious nonprofits more time to comply. However, the changes are unlikely to resolve objections from faith groups that the requirement violates their religious freedom.

More than 60 lawsuits have been filed challenging the rule. The cases are expected to reach the Supreme Court.

The birth-control rule was first introduced in February 2012, as part of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, drawing praise from women's groups and condemnation from religious leaders. The original plan exempted churches and other houses of worship, but required faith-affiliated charities, universities and other nonprofits to provide the coverage for their employees.

The regulation became an election-year issue as Roman Catholic bishops, evangelicals and some religious leaders who have generally been supportive of Obama's policies lobbied fiercely for a broader exemption. The Obama administration offered a series of accommodations, leading to the final rules released Friday.

Under the compromise, administration officials said they simplified the definition of religious organizations that are fully exempt from the requirement. The change means a church that also ran a soup kitchen would not have to comply.

Other religious nonprofits must notify their insurance company that they object to birth control coverage. The insurer or administrator of the plan will then notify affected employees separately that coverage will be provided at no cost. The insurers would be reimbursed by a credit against fees owed the government.

Michael Hash, director of the health reform office of the Health and Human Services Department, said the final regulation spells out in more detail the buffer between religious charities and contraceptive coverage. Faith-based groups were given another reprieve — until Jan. 1 — to comply.

"There's a much brighter line here — a simpler line — and we think that responds to a good many of the comments that we got," said Michael Hash, director of the Health and Human Services office of health reform. More than 400,000 comments were submitted over the last several months, the agency said.

Judy Waxman of the National Women's Law Center, an advocacy group based in Washington, said she would prefer women hear directly about the coverage from their insurer, but her organization could accept the plan. "It's fair," she said.

However, Eric Rassbach, an attorney with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public interest law firm challenging the contraception coverage rule, said "it doesn't really change the overall way they're trying to do this." The Becket Fund represents many of organizations challenging the regulation in federal court.

The Catholic Church prohibits the use of artificial contraception. Evangelicals generally accept the use of birth control, but some object to specific methods such as the morning-after contraceptive pill, which they argue is tantamount to abortion, and is covered under the policy.

The lawsuits are split almost evenly between nonprofit plaintiffs — including several Roman Catholic dioceses — and for-profit businesses who say the rules go against their religious beliefs. For-profit businesses are not included in the accommodation released Friday and were not eligible for the time extension.

The Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. is the largest and best-known of the businesses that have sued. On Thursday, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver allowed the lawsuit to move forward on religious grounds. The judges said the portion of the law that requires them to offer certain kinds of birth control to their employees is particularly onerous and sent the case back to a lower court, which had rejected the companies' request for an injunction to prevent full enforcement of the new law. Businesses that fail to comply potentially face fines, which for Hobby Lobby could reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Many of the nonprofit lawsuits had been put on hold until the final rules were announced.

Neither the Catholic Health Association, a trade group for hospitals, nor the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had an immediate reaction Friday, saying the regulations were still being studied. New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the bishops' conference, said he appreciated the time extension.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21648



View Profile
« Reply #54 on: July 15, 2013, 01:35:04 pm »

Behold The Part-Time Worker Society: "We Won't Start Hiring Full-Time People"

Once again, as always happens with a very substantial delay, two themes that have been covered extensively on these pages in the past much to the ridicule of the mainstream media, namely that while the US may have "No Manufacturing Jobs But More Waiters And Bartenders Than Ever" and that Obamacare has finally struck as "Part-Time Jobs Surge To All Time High; Full-Time Jobs Plunge By 240,000" are now begrudgingly covered and in fact, endorsed, by the very same MSM.

Enter the Wall Street Journal which blends the two themes well known to our readers, and writes that "More Restaurants Replace Full-Timers, Concerned About Insurance."

To wit: "Ken Adams has been turning to more part-time workers at his 10 Subway sandwich shops in Michigan to avoid possibly incurring higher health-care costs under the new federal insurance law. He added approximately 25 part-time workers in May and June as he reduced some employees' hours and replaced other workers who left. The move showed how efforts by some restaurant owners and other businesses to remake their workforces because of the Affordable Care Act may be turning the country's labor market into a more part-time workforce." In other words, the already worst paying jobs in the US are getting even more of the shaft, downgraded from full time to part time status. Precisely the New "part-time worker society" that we predicted would happen back in 2010...

rest: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-07-15/behold-part-time-worker-society-we-wont-start-hiring-full-time-people
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21648



View Profile
« Reply #55 on: July 16, 2013, 04:14:51 am »

Goodbye Full-Time Jobs, Hello Part-Time Jobs, R.I.P. Middle Class

A fundamental shift is taking place in the U.S. economy.  In fact, this transition is rapidly picking up momentum and is in danger of becoming an avalanche.  The percentage of full-time jobs in our economy is steadily declining and the percentage of part-time jobs is steadily increasing.  This is not a recent phenomenon, but now there are several factors which are accelerating this trend.  One of them is Obamacare.  The truth is that Obamacare actually gives business owners incentive to cut hours and turn full-time workers into part-time workers, and according to the Wall Street Journal and other prominent publications this is already happening all over the United States.  Perhaps this is part of the reasons why the U.S. economy actually lost 240,000 full-time jobs last month.

In a recent article entitled "Restaurant Shift: Sorry, Just Part-Time", the Wall Street Journal explained the choices that employers are faced with thanks to Obamacare...

    The Affordable Care Act requires employers with 50 or more full-time equivalent workers to offer affordable insurance to employees working 30 or more hours a week or face fines. Some companies have said the requirement could increase their costs significantly, although others have played down the potential hit.

    The cost for small firms to comply with the health law will depend largely on the number of additional full-time employees that sign up for employer-sponsored coverage. Average annual premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance in 2012 were $5,615 for single coverage and $15,745 for family coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That is up from $3,083 and $8,003, respectively, in 2002.

Thankfully the implementation of this aspect of Obamacare was recently delayed, but a lot of employers are saying that it won't make a difference.  They know that it is coming at some point, and so they are already making the changes that they feel they will need to make in order to comply with the law...

    Restaurant owners who have already begun shifting to part-time workers say they will continue that pattern.

    "Does the delay change anything for us? Absolutely not," Mr. Adams of Subway said, explaining that whether his health-care costs go up next year or in 2015, he will have to comply with the law. "We won't start hiring full-time people."

This is very sad, because we have already been witnessing a steady erosion of "breadwinner jobs" in this country.

It is very, very difficult to support a family if you just have a part-time job or a temp job.  But those are the jobs that our economy is producing these days.

In fact, if you can believe it, the second largest employer in the United States is now a temp agency.  Kelly Services is actually the second largest employer in the country after Wal-Mart.

Isn't that crazy?

And full-time employment continues to lag far, far behind part-time employment.  The number of part-time workers in the United States recently hit a brand new all-time record high, but the number of full-time workers remains nearly 6 million below the old record that was set back in 2007.

For much more on this, please see my previous article entitled "15 Signs That The Quality Of Jobs In America Is Going Downhill Really Fast".

At this point, employees are increasingly considered to be expendable "liabilities" that can be dumped the moment that their usefulness is over.

For example, employees at one restaurant down in Florida were recently fired by text message...

    It's bad enough losing your job, but more than a dozen angry employees say they were fired from a central Florida restaurant via text message.

    Employees at Barducci's Italian Bistro said they lost their jobs without notice after the restaurant suddenly closed and are still waiting for their paychecks.

This shift that we are witnessing is fundamentally changing the relationship between employers and employees in the United States.  The balance of power has moved very much toward the employers.

Most employers realize that there is intense competition for most jobs these days.  If you get tired of your job, your employer can easily go out and find a whole bunch of other people who would be thrilled to fill it.

So why has the balance of power shifted so dramatically?

Well, for one thing we have allowed millions upon millions of good paying jobs to be shipped out of the country.  Now American workers literally have to compete for jobs with workers on the other side of the planet that live in nations where it is legal to pay slave labor wages.

This should have never happened, but voters in both major political parties kept voting for politicians that were doing this to us.

Now we all pay the price.

Another factor is the rapid advancement of technology.

These days, businesses are trying use machines, computers and robots to automate just about everything that they can.  The following example comes from a recent Business Insider article...

    On a windy morning in California's Salinas Valley, a tractor pulled a wheeled, metal contraption over rows of budding iceberg lettuce plants. Engineers from Silicon Valley tinkered with the software on a laptop to ensure the machine was eliminating the right leafy buds.

    The engineers were testing the Lettuce Bot, a machine that can "thin" a field of lettuce in the time it takes about 20 workers to do the job by hand.

    The thinner is part of a new generation of machines that target the last frontier of agricultural mechanization — fruits and vegetables destined for the fresh market, not processing, which have thus far resisted mechanization because they're sensitive to bruising.

So what happens when the big corporations that dominate our economy are able to automate everything?

What will the rest of us do?

How will the middle class survive if they don't need us to work for them?

Over the past couple of centuries, we have witnessed several fundamental shifts in our economy.

Once upon a time, a very high percentage of Americans worked for themselves.  There were millions of farmers, ranchers, small store owners, etc.

But then the industrial revolution kicked in to high gear and big corporations started to gain more power.  Millions of Americans went to work for these big corporations, but it was okay because they paid us good wages to work in their factories and the middle class thrived.

Unfortunately, the big corporations have realized that things have changed and that they don't really need us anymore.  They can replace us with technology or with super cheap labor overseas.

So that leaves the rest of us in quite a quandry.  Very few of us own our own businesses.  In fact, the percentage of self-employed workers in the United States is at an all-time record low.  And the number of us that are needed by the monolithic corporations that dominate our system is dropping by the day.

All of this is very bad news for the middle class.  The only thing that most of us have to offer is our labor, and the value of our labor is continually declining.

Unless something dramatic happens, the future of the middle class looks very bleak.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/goodbye-full-time-jobs-hello-part-time-jobs-r-i-p-middle-class
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: July 22, 2013, 11:09:06 am »

Well, it seems like the most outspoken critics of Obamacare - restaurants in America - are also the same ones that are LOBBYING FOR this immigration reform bill...

Senate Immigration Reform Supporters Push Lobbyists to Target House GOP
http://news.yahoo.com/senate-immigration-reform-supporters-push-lobbyists-target-house-133059367.html
Quote
The groups attending included FWD.us, the Partnership for a New Economy, ITI, TechNet, CompTIA, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, Bible, Badges, and Business, Google, Microsoft, Intel, Facebook, Oracle, Cisco, Compete USA, Americans for Tax Reform, PhRMA, Texas Instruments, IBM, and the National Restaurant Association, according to people who were there.


National Restaurant Association Statement on House Vote to Repeal Health Care Law
http://www.restaurant.org/Pressroom/Press-Releases/National-Restaurant-Association-Statement-on-House
Quote
(Washington, D.C.) The National Restaurant Association (NRA) released the following statement from President and CEO Dawn Sweeney upon passage of H.R. 6079, the “Repeal of Obamacare Act”:

“On behalf of our members, we are pleased the House of Representatives has taken this step, which is in line with our view that given the unique issues that face the industry from a workforce standpoint, the economic impact of the employer mandate and the fines associated with it will impose insurmountable costs and administrative burdens for many in the industry,” Sweeney said. “Our industry wants health care reform and we will continue to actively participate in the health care reform debate, but we believe Congress must seek comprehensive health care reform that focuses first on lowering health care coverage costs and not on reform that hampers the ability of employers to create jobs.”


Front page of web site shows NRA pushing for immigration reform bill
http://www.restaurant.org/Home


Hypocrites, thieves and robbers indeed!
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21648



View Profile
« Reply #57 on: July 24, 2013, 09:53:38 am »

Brevard County to cut back hours for some part-time employees


Hundreds of part-time Brevard County workers have had their hours cut as the county prepares for the implementation of Obamacare.

 By 2015, Obamacare will require the county to provide health care for anyone working more than 30 hours per week, which means lots of companies are cutting back the hours of part-time employees.

Brevard County has over 300 part-time workers, many of whom are in the library and parks systems.

 While officials don't necessarily want to reduce hours for those employees, they'll be forced to unless the county wants to pay for full-time health benefits.

 Health benefits for each of Brevard's part-time employees would cost about $10,000 per employee.

Supervisors are now being asked to determine if they should make some of those employees full-time or simply reduce their hours.

 "I think for the most part we're going to maintain people in the status they were hired as part-time," said Brevard County Insurance Director Jerry Visco. "They're going to stay as part time and the rules just dictate to us how many hours are available to somebody in that status. So the hours will be capped at something less than 30 to keep them at part-time status."

 Channel 9's Melonie Holt found about a third of Brevard's part-timers wouldn't qualify for the benefit because they average under 30 hours per week.

 Visco said the county is no different from any other and that employers with 50 or more employees will have to comply with the new criteria.

 The new part-time definition goes into effect in January 2015.

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/brevard-county-cut-back-hours-some-part-time-emplo/nY2KK/
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: July 25, 2013, 04:05:36 pm »

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/07/25/cvs-plans-to-help-customers-navigate-obamacare/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews
7/25/13
CVS Plans to Help Customers Sign Up for Obamacare

CVS Caremark Corp. will roll out an outreach campaign this fall to help uninsured Americans find out about their insurance options under the Affordable Care Act.

Federal and state governments are planning to launch online insurance exchanges or marketplaces starting Oct. 1 that will allow people to shop for private health insurance or Medicaid if they qualify. Coverage would start Jan. 1.

“We’re planning pretty close to Oct. 1 to use stores as a place where people can get information,” Helena Foulkes, CVS Caremark executive vice president and chief health care strategy and marketing officer, said in an interview. She said the company learned during the 2006 expansion of Medicare, which added a drug benefit, that consumers didn’t start asking for information or help until they could actually enrollin a drug plan rather than worrying about it ahead of time.

Ms. Foulkes said pharmacists and pharmacy staff in the firm’s 7,400-plus retail stores will be trained to help direct customers to reliable sources of information about how they can obtain insurance coverage under the health law. Local stores will allow organizations who have trained navigators or people qualified to help consumers pick and enroll in an insurance plan to set up  inside CVS locations.

CVS, which also run retail health clinics in more than 600 stores, and other drugstore chains stand to benefit from having additional customers with insurance. Drugstores also have a pretty good idea of which customers lack insurance when they have prescriptions filled.

Earlier this month, Walgreens said it would offer informational brochures in its 8,000-plus stores to tell consumers about the health law and would launch a website in partnership with the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.

CVS is also planning in-store events that would coincide with the company’s existing “project health” program that offers free health screenings like cholesterol and glucose tests and blood pressure checks to tell consumers about the health law. The events will be focused in states that have greater portions of uninsured people, including Florida, Texas, Georgia, California and  New York.

Ms. Foukles said many people don’t realize that a family of four earning as much as $94,000 annually would qualify for tax credits. Tax credits are available for people who earn up to 400% of the federal poverty level and can be calculated using Kaiser’s subsidy calculator.

Separately, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius will continue efforts to promote the health law on Thursday in Chicago. She is expected to discuss the law with women bloggers at BlogHer’s annual conference and will  tour a Chicago community health center.

The Obama administration has been focusing some of its messaging on moms with the hopes they will prod adult children to enroll in health plans after market research data shows moms are viewed by their young adult sons as their most trusted person. The administration is concerned many young healthy people who currently lack insurance will opt against it and pay the potentially cheaper fine for not having insurance in 2014.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: July 27, 2013, 09:23:42 am »

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-26/obama-contraceptive-mandate-upheld-by-u-s-appeals-court.html?cmpid=yhoo
7/26/13
Obama Contraceptive Mandate Upheld by U.S. Appeals Court

The Obama administration won an appeals court victory in a challenge to its 2010 health-care law by a for-profit company seeking a religious exemption to a mandate that employers provide insurance coverage for contraceptives.

In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia yesterday rejected a challenge to the Affordable Care Act requirement brought by Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp., a cabinet maker owned by Mennonite Christians who argued the mandate violates their religious beliefs.

“We simply conclude that the law has long recognized the distinction between the owners of a corporation and the corporation itself,” U.S. Circuit Judge Robert Cowen wrote in the majority decision. “A holding to the contrary -- that a for-profit corporation can engage in religious exercise -- would eviscerate the fundamental principle that a corporation is a legally distinct entity from its owners.”

The ruling sets up a split between federal appeals courts that makes it more likely the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually consider the dispute. On June 27, a federal appeals court in Denver ruled that Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. was likely to win on the merits of its argument that the mandate violates the rights of the company and its owners under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Hobby Lobby
A federal judge on July 19 issued a ruling blocking enforcement of the mandate against Hobby Lobby and put the case on hold until October.

Conestoga and other companies challenged the government over the provision of the 2010 U.S. health law requiring employers and insurers to provide preventive health services without charge to their workers, a category of service the administration said includes birth control.

Thirty-six lawsuits have been filed by for-profit companies challenging the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage mandate, according to the National Women’s Law Center. In at least 24 cases the plaintiffs have won rulings allowing them not to provide the coverage while the litigation is pending. In seven cases, the court has ruled against the companies’ request, according to the group.

“Most courts agree that all Americans have religious freedom even when trying to earn a living and we think this decision will eventually be reviewed and that religious freedom will be vindicated,” Matt Bowman, a lawyer for Conestoga at the Washington-based Alliance for Defending Freedom, said in an interview.

‘Grievous Harm’
In a 66-page dissent, Circuit Judge Kent Jordan said the majority’s ruling “guarantees grievous harm” as Conestoga’s owners are forced to pay for the “offending contraceptives, including abortifacients,” in violation of their religious convictions or face “ruinous fines.”

“It should not be hard for us to join the many courts across the country that have looked at the mandate and its implementation and concluded that the government should be enjoined from telling sincere believers in the sanctity of life to put their consciences aside and support other people’s reproductive choices,” Jordan said.

The case is Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, 13-1144, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Philadelphia).

To contact the reporter on this story: Tom Schoenberg in Washington at tschoenberg@bloomberg.net.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 13   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy