"Captain, it's a viewpoint--not one of ours! We're under attack!"
"I see it, ensign! Engage amygdala! Transfer all power from frontal lobes!
Suspend critical thinking field! Go to course heading of reflexive response 101 at full bias!
Now!'Enter' at will!"
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
August 13, 2012
NY Times: IRS Interpretation of ObamaCare May Put Health Insurance Out of Reach for Many Families
New York Times: Ambiguity in Health Law Could Make Family Coverage Too Costly for Many:
The new health care law is known as the Affordable Care Act. But Democrats in Congress and advocates for low-income people say coverage may be unaffordable for millions of Americans because of a cramped reading of the law by the administration and by the IRS in particular.
Under rules proposed by the service, some working-class families would be unable to afford family coverage offered by their employers, and yet they would not qualify for subsidies provided by the law.
The fight revolves around how to define “affordable” under provisions of the law that are ambiguous. The definition could have huge practical consequences, affecting who gets help from the government in buying health insurance. Under the law, most Americans will be required to have health insurance starting in 2014. Low- and middle-income people can get tax credits and other subsidies to help pay their premiums, unless they have access to affordable coverage from an employer. The law specifies that employer-sponsored insurance is not affordable if a worker’s share of the premium is more than 9.5 percent of the worker’s household income.
The IRS says this calculation should be based solely on the cost of individual coverage for the employee, what the worker would pay for “self-only coverage.” Critics say the administration should also take account of the costs of covering a spouse and children because family coverage typically costs much more.
In 2011, according to an annual survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance averaged $5,430 a year for single coverage and $15,070 for family coverage. The employee’s share of the premium averaged $920 for individual coverage and more than four times as much, $4,130, for family coverage. Under the IRS proposal, such costs would be deemed affordable for a family making $35,000 a year, even though the family would have to spend 12% of its income for full coverage under the employer’s plan.
Last edited by Thiebear; October-18th-2012 at 01:04 PM.
Romney was asked about tax deductions, I took notes. He picked a number "$25,000" whatever.
Then he said "No tax on savings." Jeez, Mitt, that's mighty generous of you in a country with a negative savings rate and a paltry interest rate on any saving account. Then no taxes on mutual funds. It's a nice smokescreen to, once again, just benefit the wealthy.
Man, the electoral map sure is turning red fast. PANIC! PANIC!
Ohio ain't looking blue
“These are the ideas that people come to America to get away from.”Rubio
How should society view a cure for a ailment of limited duration that takes another's life to 'cure'?
It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion. ...Dean Inge
But seriously, they key ones there that are now considered "toss ups" that are still likely Obama are Penn and Michigan. So add 36 EVs for Obama there and take 36 away from the toss up category.
Polling looks good for Romney in FL.
The election is really coming down to 3 states that are neck and neck... Colorado, Virginia, and Ohio.
Romney Caught Encouraging Business Owners to Tell Employees How to Vote
Recently several business owners have made headlines by sending out missives suggesting that workers should vote Romney if they're interested in the health of the business (and thus their jobs). Now In These Times reports that in a June conference call with the National Federation of Independent Business, Mitt Romney said that he's totally behind the questionable practice. "I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections," said Romney.
"Nothing illegal about you talking to your employees about what you believe is best for the business, because I think that will figure into their election decision, their voting decision, and of course doing that with your family and your kids as well." Sure, there's no law against employers sharing their political opinions; people just tend to find this sort of thing creepy and unethical, particularly when their boss suggests there's a good chance they'll be joining the ranks of the unemployed if they don't vote Romney.
Though Romney says at the end of the call (the pertinent remarks are 26 minutes in) that he wants employers to pass on their political views "whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama," so far there have only been reports of pro-Romney mailings.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)