Saying Obama is better than Bush is in football terms saying the Bills are better than the Jaguars,,,, it doesn't matter, they both suck

Quoted from Box A Rox

Thank God for President Barack Hussein Obama!  If it were left to the Republicans, those dollars
going to feed the poorest of America, would be going to the Richest.

when the state says you don't have to own land to feed yourself, then you have to wait for the state to place value on you.
PATHETIC

TAKE THE MAN OFF THE LAND AND HE STARVES, IN HIS SPIRIT/MIND/BODY/SOUL......

Employers To Hire More Full-Time Workers As Obamacare Begins

Quoted Text

A new survey of chief financial officers finds that American companies expect to
increase the number of full-time employees by 1.8 percent over the next 12 months
as key parts of the Affordable Care Act go into effect, undermining conservative critics
who’ve argued that the health care law would hamper business growth and expansion.
“The expected two percent growth in employment is solid, given the context of long-run
shifts away from full-time employees largely because of concerns about health care reform
and economic uncertainty.”
John Graham, Duke Fuqua School of Business.

Money Watch
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505143_162-57602267/despite-obamacare-execs-still-expect-to-keep-hiring/

Walgreen Joins in Exodus of Workers to Private Exchanges
By Drew Armstrong - Sep 18, 2013 10:44 AM ET
Walgreen Co. (WAG), the biggest U.S. drugstore chain, will move its workers into a private health insurance exchange to buy company-subsidized coverage, the latest sign of how the debate over Obamacare is accelerating a historic shift in corporate health-care coverage.

About 160,000 Walgreen employees now have to choose which coverage plan suits them best at a time of rising complexity in the health-care system. While Walgreen said it will provide funding in 2014 equal to what workers get now, the move curtails uncertainty on future outlays, and there’s no guarantee the company's contribution will rise if premiums do.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

undercuts

Obamacare Will Increase Health Spending By $7,450 For A Typical Family of Four
Chris Conover Chris Conover

It was one of candidate Obama’s most vivid and concrete campaign promises. Forget about high minded (some might say high sounding) but gauzy promises of hope and change. This candidate solemnly pledged on June 5, 2008: “In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year….. We’ll do it by the end of my first term as President of the United States.”  Unfortunately, the experts working for Medicare’s actuary have (yet again[1]) reported that in its first 10 years, Obamacare will boost health spending by “roughly $621 billion” above the amounts Americans would have spent without this misguided law.

What this means for a typical family of four

$621 billion is a pretty eye-glazing number. Most readers will find it easier to think about how this number translates to a typical American family—the very family candidate Obama promised would see $2,500 in annual savings as far as the eye could see. So I have taken the latest year-by-year projections, divided by the projected U.S. population to determine the added amount per person and multiplied the result by 4.

Interactive Guide: What Will Obamacare Cost You?

Simplistic? Maybe, but so too was the President’s campaign promise. And this approach allows us to see just how badly that promise fell short of the mark. Between 2014 and 2022, the increase in national health spending (which the Medicare actuaries specifically attribute to the law) amounts to $7,450 per family of 4.

Let us hope this family hasn’t already spent or borrowed the $22,500 in savings they might have expected over this same period had they taken candidate Obama’s promise at face value. In truth, no well-informed American ever should have believed this absurd promise. At the time, Factcheck.org charitably deemed this claim as “overly optimistic, misleading and, to some extent, contradicted by one of his own advisers.”  The Washington Post less charitably awarded it Two Pinocchios (“Significant omissions or exaggerations”). Yet rather than learn from his mistakes, President Obama on July 16, 2012 essentially doubled-down on his promise, assuring small business owners “your premiums will go down.” He made this assertion notwithstanding the fact that in three separate reports between April 2010 and June 2012, the Medicare actuaries had demonstrated that the ACA would increase health spending. To its credit, the Washington Post dutifully awarded the 2012 claim Three Pinocchios (“Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.”)        http://www.forbes.com/sites/th.....ical-family-of-four/

Quoted from Shadow

Obamacare Will Increase Health Spending By $7,450 For A Typical Family of Four
Chris Conover Chris Conover

Sorry Shadow... but your Health Care Math Sucks.

Quoted Text

An article published by Forbes claiming that Obamacare will increase health care costs by
$7,450 for a typical family of four is spreading like wildfire across the internet, but causing
eye rolls from economists across the country.

A “typical American family,” Conover took “the latest year-by-year projections, divided by
the projected U.S. population to determine the added amount per person,” multiplied that
result by four and voila: Obamacare will add $7,450 to average health spending for a family
of four between 2014 and 2022!

The so-called “typical” family that Conover describes already receives health care insurance
through their employer. The existence of 30 million newly-insured people — many of whom
will receive tax credits if they purchase insurance in the law’s exchanges — won’t do much
to move their premiums in one way or another.

“This is a typically misleading use of data by opponents of Obamacare,” MIT’s Jonathan
Gruber added. “The bottom line is that the government has consistently reported that
Obamacare will raise national health spending by about 1 to 2 percent.” “This is a small
fraction of the typical 5 to 7 percent annual growth rate in health care – and is a small
price to pay for insuring 30 million or more Americans.”

but what is the VALUE of the cost.....??? that's like saying national grid won't raise it's rates......

national grid being a supplier in the government controlled 'needs of civilization' doesn't lower it's rates because their union contract
along with their retirees benefits and their shareholders demand their share of the pie called energy...but they WILL send you
a stupid letter telling you how you can save $$ by spending $$ so that you match your neighbor's energy use....

DO NOT think that national healthcare will be a gold standard or a cadillac standard....it will 'save' $$ and it will save for itself.....OR..
it will be run like the behemoth DSS/Welfare systems....

sure more people will be 'on it'.....in a legal sense....and held to their own monetary responsibility...remember one thing...I don't
work for free and neither does anyone else....but people like to think everyone in healthcare are angels earning their wings for
their seats in heaven....

It's not my math Box it's from Forbes if you have a problem with the math take it up with them.

Quoted from Shadow

It's not my math Box it's from Forbes if you have a problem with the math take it up with them.

Follow the math... You'll see it's a scam:

Quoted Text

One economist,  the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities’ Paul Van de Water, described this
calculation as one of the stupidest things he’s read in a long time
He likened it to arguing that college costs will increase for a “typical” family if the federal
government adopts policies that help lower-income Americans afford college educations.

Yes, the nation will spend more on education if more students enroll in colleges and universities,
but the “typical” student already attending college won’t; she or he will continuing paying tuition
at more or less the same rate, while the newly-enrolled student will presumably benefit from some
sort of subsidized tuition rate.

Quoted Text

One economist,  the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities’ Paul Van de Water, described this
calculation as one of the stupidest things he’s read in a long time
He likened it to arguing that college costs will increase for a “typical” family if the federal
government adopts policies that help lower-income Americans afford college educations.

Yes, the nation will spend more on education if more students enroll in colleges and universities,
but the “typical” student already attending college won’t; she or he will continuing paying tuition
at more or less the same rate, while the newly-enrolled student will presumably benefit from some
sort of subsidized tuition rate.

Why not mail the checks subsidizing college or healthcare directly to the individual?  Why not give billions in cash to the citizens?  Why force it into healthcare and colleges?  Wouldn't a $20k check in every Americans mailbox fix the "problem"?

'Family glitch' in health law could be painful
Kelly Kennedy, USA TODAY 7:56 p.m. EDT September 23, 2013

WASHINGTON — A so-called "family glitch" in the 2010 health care law threatens to cost some families thousands of dollars in health insurance costs and leave up to 500,000 children without coverage, insurance and health care analysts say.

That's unless Congress fixes the problem, which seems unlikely given the House's latest move Friday to strip funding from the law, which is also called the Affordable Care Act.

Congress defined "affordable" as 9.5% or less of an employee's household income, mostly to make sure people did not leave their workplace plans for subsidized coverage through the exchanges. But the "error" was that it only applies to the employee — and not his or her family. So, if an employer offers a woman affordable insurance, but doesn't provide it for her family, they cannot get subsidized help through the state health exchanges.

That can make a huge difference; the Kaiser Family Foundation said an average plan for an individual is about $5,600, but it goes up to $15,700 for families. Most employers help out with those costs, but not all.

"We saw this two-and-a-half years ago and thought, 'Has anyone else noticed this?'" said Kosali Simon, a professor of public affairs at Indiana University who specializes in health economics. "Everyone said, 'No, no. You must be wrong.' But we weren't, and that's going to leave a lot of people out."   http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/23/aca-family-glitch-issues/2804017/

everyone is an individual....with a SS number....no need for 'family' coverage anymore....

Quoted from senders

everyone is an individual....with a SS number....no need for 'family' coverage anymore....

Good.  Send the bill to the 3 year old.  See how that works for ya.

Quoted from Box A Rox

Good.  Send the bill to the 3 year old.  See how that works for ya.

in other words with national healthcare and their own SS# they already have their own card....the parent/guardian is
their proxy but the # and charge is individual....

it will continue to morph...you can't have age discrimination just because the person was to young to work....

EVERYONE HAS ACCESS....get it?

it will be medicare expanded with a little fancy title....