Oooh...Mr. Bennett, a cartoon with motion in it?
That's a first, isn't it?
Fairmon wrote: "Wasn't part D for Medicare participants only? Were their private policies canceled even if they preferred to keep them?"
Don't worry Fairmon. The Republicans are going to fix that problem this week, for nobody.
"Notwithstanding any provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (including any amendment made by such Act or by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010), a health insurance issuer that has in effect health insurance coverage in the individual market as of January 1, 2013, may continue after such date to offer such coverage for sale during 2014 in such market outside of an Exchange established under section 1311 or 1321 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 18031, 18041)."*
How many people does anyone really believe they are going to help with this stupid idea of moving the Grandfathering date up to January 1, 2013?
Previously, the date was March 23, 2010, and it's completely up to the insurance companies to keep or discard policies issued prior to January 1, 2014, and nothing is changed through any provision contained in this totally pathetic bill.
No one gets to CHOOSE to keep their current insurance, if the insurer desires to cancel any policy written before January 1, 2014.
The GOP have yet another trick up their sleeves, but I'm not sure how well they have thought it out.
John Boehner announced that they were moving forward with "The Keep Your Health Plan Act."
I wonder if they truly believe that Congress is going to successfully demand that insurers do not have the right to cancel pre-ObamaCare policies, and even more to the point, do they honestly believe that Congress has the authority to demand that employers do not have the right to change insurers or plans?
Nope. The intent of the bill is to ALLOW any insurer who has issued a policy before January 1, 2013 and that is in effect on January 1, 2014, to continue to offer such policies.
In effect, this bill does nothing to assure anyone that they can keep their current insurance. It's all up to the insurer.
They aren't even touching employer sponsored plans.
According to Govtrack.us, it has about a 10% change of being passed in the House ,and rightfully so, for this is yet another attempt by the Republicans to offer legislation that does nothing at all for the American People.
I hope these clowns keep up the good job of demonstrating why not one of them deserves to be in charge of any branch of the Government.
"If I remember correctly you said at one time you owned 25 acres of land because you got such a great deal on it. Are there two different sets of rules you live by?"
Nope. It was 28 acres and I farmed it.
"I believe you also said that you did eventually sell all but two acres of the land."
Three. Two of those acres have horses on it.
"If that is so, do you really need two acres to live on? That seems excessive because a lot of people live a lots that are the size of a postage stamp."
I rented the two fenced acres to a neighbor. I take care of the last remaining acre around my house.
The rest was sold two years ago this month.
Kliffnotes wrote: "Now, I know you've lost all sense of common sense,, decency and humanity, Alpi. I've been in the check-out line behind people using WIC and EBT cards too. And it takes lesser time to ring them up than it does me writing out a check to pay for my purchases. Shame on you, alpi."
Every single time I have been stuck behind someone using EBT or WIC, there ensues an argument of what is allowed and disallowed for such purchases. Heaven forbid someone attempts to purchase more than what is on their card, because then madness ensues between the family as to what they keep and what stays in the store.
When using WIC vouchers, there are most often, multiple vouchers used, which have to be matched to the items as they are rung up. And no one presorts their purchases, so it takes extra time to do the sorting, and there's always..."Oh wait...I forgot to get that....I'll be right back!!"
I never hit the store on the first of the month. I live right on the border and half of Chattanooga comes to my neighborhood Bi-Lo for their groceries.
"And my mentioning SS/VA as a target was just to show you that the people you're listening to won't stop at welfare, foodtamps and WIC recipients. They're going to gut and cut across the board, and they're going to use people like you to boost their numbers of support to carry it all out. Like I said, Alpi, y'all always think it's the other guy and not yourselves who will be targeted."
I already agreed with you.
You're making much too much over my little rant on EBT and WIC recipients.
Next subject please....
Fairmon wrote: "alprova that would be a good and noble thing to do. I never see any post here about peoples obligation to prepare themselves for an opportunity. How many of you have tried to find and hire 100 or more people with basic reading, writing, reasoning and math skills?"
Sir, the answer to that question all depends on what you are willing to pay such people. People with basic reading, writing, reasoning and math skills, or better, are not clamoring for jobs that pay minimum wage or a little more.
In our area, Amazon doesn't seem to have any problem attracting a good and reliable workforce. Neither does Volkswagen.
"It is frightening how many don't have those skills and the number that cannot pass a drug screen."
And I am ready to join you in having no sympathy for such people.
"Reliability as evidenced by being on time as scheduled is rare."
Again...what are such employers offering in compensation?
"There are employers today seeking the skills needed in technical operations that cannot fill jobs."
That is only true for jobs that require higher education or years of experience.
"The welfare state is not primarily those laid off and through no fault of their own fell on hard times. Regardless of the number of jobs created the number incapable of providing for themselves and, as pointed out, those gaming the system is an unsupportable number."
Recent studies estimate that about 10% or less are gaming the system. Up to about 21% are drug users. The vast majority are those who are truly needy.
"It is easy to find sympathetic cases as examples that deserve welfare and assistance. But, for each of those there are 100's if not thousands of those that simply have nothing to offer an employer that would entice an employer to hire them when jobs are available. When all that is offered by an employment candidate is nothing then that is what they will earn."
There is little evidence to support your conclusion. The reverse seems to be the truth.
"When a kid with tattoos all over, pierces, spiked hair and holding his pants up with one hand and his crack showing that does cause concern about what can be expected if employed in a semi-skilled job."
Can't argue with that.
kliffnotes wrote: "btw-When I use to post here, you use to make a lot of sense. Show a lot more compassion. What happened? Who got to you?"
Thank you for the compliment, and I am still very compassionate, but that does not mean that I am blind to certain realities that are in evidence.
I've seen both sides of the coin, earning six figures for many years of my life, and I've seen some years where I made less than someone working at McDonald's.
All I am stating is that in those lean years, I never went running to the Gov't with my hand out to feed me. I simply feel that welfare is handed out to many, but nowhere near a majority, of people who could budget a little better to be able to feed themselves.
Now I admit that a roof over my head has never been an issue, because I paid off my home years ago. Had I had house payments or rent to pay, I might see things differently than I do now.
Please understand that I have all the compassion in the world for those who are truly needy and who have nothing, but no one who is able to work should be getting a free ride for all of their living expenses.
I know that true forms of welfare amount to only 8% of the national budget, so any abuse that may exist does not amount to enough to get worked up about.
People claiming to be impoverished need to be truly impoverished, and it needs to be monitored very closely, or some of what some people say, will come true.
It should be very hard for people to be lazy in this nation.
Kliffnotes wrote: "Many have said the same thing about people who become too sick to work and must apply for SS before retirement age."
And you include that example as if I have included such people in with the abusers. I haven't and I don't.
"They're saying the same about veterans who apply for V.A. benefits."
But you haven't seem ME state that, have you?
"You sound like you've been listening to those libertarians who are nothing more than mostly right winger Republicans dressed up in libertarian drag. They've been jumping the GOP ship all over the place since they screwed that up and trying to clean up their image somewhat or hide."
I'm currently as liberal as one can be, but I'm not so liberal that I can't recognize a problem when I see it.
For the third time, I don't judge people based on on brief encounter, but that doesn't mean I don't raise my eyebrows now and then, when I see a case of possible abuse.
For instance, your excuse that it is possible that someone is borrowing someone's clothes to go shopping for groceries is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
"What proof do you have that welfare is horribly abused?"
As much proof as you have that it isn't. However, my evidence is a bit stronger than yours. Impoverished people don't drive $40,000 luxury automobiles. Impoverished people cannot afford the payments or the insurance on such a vehicle, right?
There's enough Republican in me to understand that someone who just paid for two buggies full of meat with an EBT card, loading their groceries into an expensive car, does not compute. And I'm sorry, but you're not going to convince me that everyone who does this is borrowing a luxury car to go to the grocery store.
"Some are saying the same thing about SS. People like you will be on their SS hit list when they get through with the welfare recipients."
The Republicans know better than to finagle with entitlements very much, even though I agree with you that some would, if they could.
"And from that occasional encounter, you've determined and come to the conclusion what?"
Here lately, it's been more than an occasional encounter. You're preaching to the choir, for the most part. I don't judge. I question. I don't know for sure, but I suspect. That's all.
The truth is between them and the Good Lord.
In the meantime, I will always patiently wait my turn to pay, whenever a cashier takes 20 minutes to ring up an EBT or a WIC sale for the person who may or may not truly deserve such welfare.