Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They will have no choice but to raise the price of tuition, thus harming those who cant afford it the most..
Democratic success..
No doubt.
Liberal policies do nothing but increase costs, deny people basic needs and make a mess of everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by abnheel
Why was this moved? A local news website report about local school system. I think someone who moved it has a little buyer's remorse.
Are you suggesting UNC is the only university in the federation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by borregokid
Apparently UNC got into the habit of keeping most of their employees under 30 hours a week so they wouldnt have to pay benefits. Now its going to 29 hours a week. Who care about the employees?
Obviously Left-Wingers don't, or Leftm-Wingers would have removed Soviet-style Command Economic policies and replaced them with Free Market policies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by borregokid
You wont find a Tea Partier out there having much sympathy...they have theirs and for the rest of us...its ********* and please pay your taxes.
This thread isn't about tea parties, but thanks for the moronic attempt to derail it just the same.
What happen, did you fall in love with a Tea Bagger and get burned? Is that why you're so bitter?
Everything is "free"....
Health insurance premiums are not fines. Switching the words around in order to make a poorly constructed point doesn't alter the facts. .
FAIL.. The fine is cheaper than buying the insurance, and the story says they are lookign to CUT HOURS in order to dodge the law alltogether, which means they wont be paying for insurance premiums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYC2RDU
Y'know what? Upon further reflection I'd prefer the ACA opposition stick to the low brow one-liners and not quote misleading facts. If you really believe that's what the Congressional Budget Office said then there's no real point in engaging in dialogue with you.
Thats weird considering the CBO reports were used to justify ACA, now all of a sudden, they are just unbelievable..
yeah, no point in engaging in dialogue with someone who actually reads their reports, move on to others will will just buy the talking points and wont question them..
Do you remember that time when you had to chose between making your mortgage payment or health insurance premium payment?
Do you remember that time when Free Market policies made healthcare affordable for everyone?
Probably not, since you have had Soviet-style Command Healthcare since 1933.
By the way, how's that working for everybody?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYC2RDU
Or what about that other time when no insurer would offer coverage to your spouse because they suffered from chronic migraines?
Or what about the time when you government interfered in the Free Market with this stupid policy...
"Amounts paid by an employer on account of premiums on insurance on the life of the employee...may not exceed five per cent of the employee’s annual salary or wages determined without the inclusion of insurance and pension benefits."
Source: War Labor Reports, Reports and Decisions of the National War Labor Board (Washington, D.C.: The Bureau of National Affairs, 4, 1943) LXIV.
Source: Office of Economic Stabilization, Regulations of the Part 4001 Relating to Wages and Salaries, Issued October 27, 1942; amended November 5 and November 30, 1942, Section 4001.1 (h) (2), War Labor Reports 4, XII.
Source: War Labor Reports, Reports and Decisions of the National War Labor Board, Section 1002.8, LXVIII.
Or what about the time when your government interfered just like the Soviet Politburo would here.....
Unions have the right negotiate fringe benefits on behalf of employees
Source: Inland Steel Co. v. National Labor Relations Board. United Steel Workers Of America, C.I.O., et al. v. National Labor Relations Board; United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
"...pension and retirement plans constitute part of the subject matter of compulsory collective bargaining under the Act."
September 23, 1948. Writ of Certiorari Granted January 17, 1949. 170 F.2d 247 (1948)
"Following the 1949 Inland Steel decision by the Supreme Court, pensions became a mandatory bargaining topic and the subject of nearly all collective negotiations."
Source: www.nber.org/chapters/c7131.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYC2RDU
You remember, you had to watch her/him go for more than a full year without being able to get standard tests for anything because without insurance it costs thousands of dollars? Or couldn't afford to get all of their monthly prescriptions filled because without insurance it costs upwards of $1,000?
You remember, a non-governmental organization and special interest group -- the American Hospital Association --- caused many of your problems with their "enabling legislation." Of course you remember, since you claim to be familiar with New York.
NY Laws 1934, c. 595, adding Article 14, §§452-461, to the New York Insurance Law. The 1939
legislature adopted a new codification of the Insurance Law, effective June 15, 1939, in which Article
DC-C, §§250-259, was substituted for Article 14, broadened to include non-profit medical indemnity
corporations, and amended in other respects.
California: Stat. 1935, c 386, amended, Stat. 1937, c. 881, Stat. 1939, A. B. 1712;
Illinois:Rev. Stat. (1937) §§551-562;
Mississippi: Laws 1936, c 177;
Georgia: Laws 1937, no. 379, p. 690;
Maryland: Laws 1937, c. 224;
Massachusetts: Annotated Laws (1938 Supp.) c 176A;
Pennsylvania: Stat. Ann. (Purdon, 1938) tit. 15, a 49A, §§2851-1301—2851-1309;
Kentucky: Acts 1938, c. 23;
New Jersey: Laws 1938, c. 366;
Connecticut: Laws 1939, S. B. 51;
District of Columbia: S. B. 497, 76th Cong. 1st Scss.(1939);
Iowa: Laws 1939, c. 222;
Maine: Laws 1939, c. 149;
Michigan: Laws 1939, H. B. 145;
New Hampshire: Laws 1939, H. B. 232;
New Mexico: Laws 1939, c. 66;
Ohio: Laws- 1939, S. B. 181;
Rhode Island: Laws 1939, c. 719;
South Carolina: Acts 1939, H. B. 845;
Texas: Laws 1939, Subst. H. B. 191;
Vermont: Laws 1939;
Wisconsin: Laws 1939, S. B. 288.
Note: The Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin acts were passed in 1939 after bills had been defeated in 1937.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYC2RDU
Because if you don't, if you don't understand how remarkably biased healthcare is for people who need to go it on their own without having sufficient income to pay the insanely high premiums being charged (if they even extend an offer of coverage), you can't speak from a true position of expertise.
Sure you can. In fact, I probably the only person that could even remotely considered to be an expert on this forum. In fact, on the entire internet.
You are completely lacking in expertise in the matter of the history of your healthcare system; lacking in the expertise to understand how the polices of your own government and special interest group -- the American Hospital Association -- created a system that disenfranchised Millions of Americans, denying them access to health plan coverage, while driving up the cost of healthcare; and lacking in common sense.
Since you claim to have some expertise, then prove it.....you can explain how this law obtained by the lobbying efforts of the American Hospital Association deprived Millions of Americans of wealth, increased the so-called "Income Inequality" gap, drove up the cost of healthcare and simultaneously drove up the cost of health plan coverage.
"Premiums paid by an employer on policies of group life insurance without cash surrender value covering the lives of his employees, or on policies of group health or accident insurance...do not constitute salary if such premiums are deductible by the employer under Section 23(a) of the IRS Code."
Source: Public Law 83-591, August 16, 1954; Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Section 106. See the 1986 Internal Revenue Code for more information.
Just to show how little you really know, here's something for you to mull over...
"Introduced by various House and Senate sponsors and subject to extensive hearings, the basic framework of part A began to reflect accommodations between the sponsors, the Administration and the American Hospital Association (AHA).
It ranged all the way from principles of institutional reimbursement, which has been pretty thoroughly already worked out in a general way for their own purposes between Blue Cross and the Hospital Association over a period of several years
The American Hospital Associationhas already nominated the Blue Cross organization for its membership, although some member hospitals will undoubtedly elect out of this arrangement. We have proceeded very far in the development of working arrangements with Blue Cross, although no formal approval as a fiscal intermediary has yet been given them."
Source: Report to Social Security Administration Staff on the Implementation of the Social Security Amendments of 1965, Robert M. Ball Commissioner, November 15, 1965
And here's something else....
The American Hospital Association gave....
$779 Million to Obama for America 2008
$260 Million to DNC 2008
$428 Million to RNC 2008
A small child 5 years of age can connect the dots....can you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYC2RDU
Criticize the ACA only if you have a viable alternative, otherwise you're just simply part of the problem we previously couldn't solve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYC2RDU
I read through this reply twice and didn't find a viable alternative to the ACA.
Criticism of the ACA is warranted, not to mention it is a matter of Free Speech under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Read this very informative ruling by your very own US Supreme Court on the ACA:
2. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16–30.
Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.” Pp. 16–27.
(b) Nor can the individual mandate be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms. Each of this Court’s prior cases upholding laws under that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power. E.g., United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. ___.
3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable. The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power.
Source: National Federation Of Independent Business Et Al. v. Sebelius, Secretary Of Health And Human Services, Et Al. US Supreme Court 2012
Which part of that do you not understand?
Roberts also explained why the Federal Trade Commission cannot investigate and prosecute hospitals for price-gouging the snot out of consumers.........cannot investigate and prosecute hospitals for illegally colluding to harm consumers financially......cannot investigate and prosecute hospitals for illegally fixing prices to harm consumers financially.....
....the FTC has no authority over intra-State Commerce.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYC2RDU
I realize it's a high form of intellectual debate to mockingly one-liner the opposition but I was hoping you'd stoop low enough to intelligently defend why doing nothing for tens of millions of people was okay.
According to your own government the ACA will leave 30 Million without insurance.
Providing health plan coverage for 10 Million while denying 30 Million, what is that, some pigs are more equal than others?
How do you intellectually justify that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahzzie
Why not? Of course you think it's wrong for anyone other than yourself to have access to health care.
100% of Americans have access to healthcare.
If 100% of Americans do not have access to health plan coverage, then you have only yourself, the American Hospital Association and your own government to blame.
See the previous sources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahzzie
I think it irritates the conservative ilk to no end that poor people and those with pre-existing conditions are now able to get health insurance. It makes me smile every time I see a post from a conservative ranting on about how he or she hates the ACA. That means it's WORKING!!!
If it is working, then why is Obama in a total panic and doing an end-run around the Constitution using Executive Orders to delay implementation of key components of the ACA?
What irritates Conservatives is the undisputed fact that complying with the US Constitution and eliminating Soviet-style Command Economic Policies, replacing them with Free Market Policies will reduce the cost of healthcare for everyone, and reducing the cost of healthcare will simultaneously reduce the cost of health plan coverage.
Too bad you don't get it....
Do you remember that time when Free Market policies made healthcare affordable for everyone?
Probably not, since you have had Soviet-style Command Healthcare since 1933.
By the way, how's that working for everybody?
Or what about the time when you government interfered in the Free Market with this stupid policy...
"Amounts paid by an employer on account of premiums on insurance on the life of the employee...may not exceed five per cent of the employee’s annual salary or wages determined without the inclusion of insurance and pension benefits."
Source: War Labor Reports, Reports and Decisions of the National War Labor Board (Washington, D.C.: The Bureau of National Affairs, 4, 1943) LXIV.
Source: Office of Economic Stabilization, Regulations of the Part 4001 Relating to Wages and Salaries, Issued October 27, 1942; amended November 5 and November 30, 1942, Section 4001.1 (h) (2), War Labor Reports 4, XII.
Source: War Labor Reports, Reports and Decisions of the National War Labor Board, Section 1002.8, LXVIII.
Or what about the time when your government interfered just like the Soviet Politburo would here.....
Unions have the right negotiate fringe benefits on behalf of employees
Source: Inland Steel Co. v. National Labor Relations Board. United Steel Workers Of America, C.I.O., et al. v. National Labor Relations Board; United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.
"...pension and retirement plans constitute part of the subject matter of compulsory collective bargaining under the Act."
September 23, 1948. Writ of Certiorari Granted January 17, 1949. 170 F.2d 247 (1948)
"Following the 1949 Inland Steel decision by the Supreme Court, pensions became a mandatory bargaining topic and the subject of nearly all collective negotiations."
Source: www.nber.org/chapters/c7131.pdf
You remember, a non-governmental organization and special interest group -- the American Hospital Association --- caused many of your problems with their "enabling legislation." Of course you remember, since you claim to be familiar with New York.
NY Laws 1934, c. 595, adding Article 14, §§452-461, to the New York Insurance Law. The 1939
legislature adopted a new codification of the Insurance Law, effective June 15, 1939, in which Article
DC-C, §§250-259, was substituted for Article 14, broadened to include non-profit medical indemnity
corporations, and amended in other respects.
California: Stat. 1935, c 386, amended, Stat. 1937, c. 881, Stat. 1939, A. B. 1712;
Illinois:Rev. Stat. (1937) §§551-562;
Mississippi: Laws 1936, c 177;
Georgia: Laws 1937, no. 379, p. 690;
Maryland: Laws 1937, c. 224;
Massachusetts: Annotated Laws (1938 Supp.) c 176A;
Pennsylvania: Stat. Ann. (Purdon, 1938) tit. 15, a 49A, §§2851-1301—2851-1309;
Kentucky: Acts 1938, c. 23;
New Jersey: Laws 1938, c. 366;
Connecticut: Laws 1939, S. B. 51;
District of Columbia: S. B. 497, 76th Cong. 1st Scss.(1939);
Iowa: Laws 1939, c. 222;
Maine: Laws 1939, c. 149;
Michigan: Laws 1939, H. B. 145;
New Hampshire: Laws 1939, H. B. 232;
New Mexico: Laws 1939, c. 66;
Ohio: Laws- 1939, S. B. 181;
Rhode Island: Laws 1939, c. 719;
South Carolina: Acts 1939, H. B. 845;
Texas: Laws 1939, Subst. H. B. 191;
Vermont: Laws 1939;
Wisconsin: Laws 1939, S. B. 288.
Note: The Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin acts were passed in 1939 after bills had been defeated in 1937.
Sure you can. In fact, I probably the only person that could even remotely considered to be an expert on this forum. In fact, on the entire internet.
You are completely lacking in expertise in the matter of the history of your healthcare system; lacking in the expertise to understand how the polices of your own government and special interest group -- the American Hospital Association -- created a system that disenfranchised Millions of Americans, denying them access to health plan coverage, while driving up the cost of healthcare; and lacking in common sense.
Since you claim to have some expertise, then prove it.....you can explain how this law obtained by the lobbying efforts of the American Hospital Association deprived Millions of Americans of wealth, increased the so-called "Income Inequality" gap, drove up the cost of healthcare and simultaneously drove up the cost of health plan coverage.
"Premiums paid by an employer on policies of group life insurance without cash surrender value covering the lives of his employees, or on policies of group health or accident insurance...do not constitute salary if such premiums are deductible by the employer under Section 23(a) of the IRS Code."
Source: Public Law 83-591, August 16, 1954; Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Section 106. See the 1986 Internal Revenue Code for more information.
Just to show how little you really know, here's something for you to mull over...
"Introduced by various House and Senate sponsors and subject to extensive hearings, the basic framework of part A began to reflect accommodations between the sponsors, the Administration and the American Hospital Association (AHA).
It ranged all the way from principles of institutional reimbursement, which has been pretty thoroughly already worked out in a general way for their own purposes between Blue Cross and the Hospital Association over a period of several years
The American Hospital Associationhas already nominated the Blue Cross organization for its membership, although some member hospitals will undoubtedly elect out of this arrangement. We have proceeded very far in the development of working arrangements with Blue Cross, although no formal approval as a fiscal intermediary has yet been given them."
Source: Report to Social Security Administration Staff on the Implementation of the Social Security Amendments of 1965, Robert M. Ball Commissioner, November 15, 1965
And here's something else....
The American Hospital Association gave....
$779 Million to Obama for America 2008
$260 Million to DNC 2008
$428 Million to RNC 2008
A small child 5 years of age can connect the dots....can you?
Criticism of the ACA is warranted, not to mention it is a matter of Free Speech under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Read this very informative ruling by your very own US Supreme Court on the ACA:
2. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16–30.
Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.” Pp. 16–27.
(b) Nor can the individual mandate be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms. Each of this Court’s prior cases upholding laws under that Clause involved exercises of authority derivative of, and in service to, a granted power. E.g., United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. ___.
3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable. The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power.
Source: National Federation Of Independent Business Et Al. v. Sebelius, Secretary Of Health And Human Services, Et Al. US Supreme Court 2012
Which part of that do you not understand?
Roberts also explained why the Federal Trade Commission cannot investigate and prosecute hospitals for price-gouging the snot out of consumers.........cannot investigate and prosecute hospitals for illegally colluding to harm consumers financially......cannot investigate and prosecute hospitals for illegally fixing prices to harm consumers financially.....
....the FTC has no authority over intra-State Commerce.
According to your own government the ACA will leave 30 Million without insurance.
Providing health plan coverage for 10 Million while denying 30 Million, what is that, some pigs are more equal than others?
How do you intellectually justify that?
100% of Americans have access to healthcare.
If 100% of Americans do not have access to health plan coverage, then you have only yourself, the American Hospital Association and your own government to blame.
See the previous sources.
If it is working, then why is Obama in a total panic and doing an end-run around the Constitution using Executive Orders to delay implementation of key components of the ACA?
What irritates Conservatives is the undisputed fact that complying with the US Constitution and eliminating Soviet-style Command Economic Policies, replacing them with Free Market Policies will reduce the cost of healthcare for everyone, and reducing the cost of healthcare will simultaneously reduce the cost of health plan coverage.
Too bad you don't get it....
Mircea
Wow, I'm impressed! All of this information to discredit my expertise when, in fact, I've never claimed to have any.
What value do you bring to this conversation when all you've done is provide a deluge of information explaining how you think the problem came to be? And how much credibility do you expect to earn by misquoting an already debunked myth regarding the CBO report?
Tell me, with all of your energy to research and frame the issue, how do you propose we solve the problem of denying tens of millions of our fellow citizens access to basic healthcare?
they could cut the bloated salaries of UNC system administrators
Please share with me what these bloated salaries are.. Until then, you're just bloviating
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
