The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

Friday, September 20, 2013

Problems with Obamacare.

Home Depot became yet another company that announced it would shift part-time workers to the government-run healthcare exchanges. In addition, a company spokesperson conceded that full-time employees, though they will still get health benefits, would pay more due to an increase in costs next year. 

Companies like Trader Joe's and Walgreens have made similar announcements before the Obamacare exchanges are set to open in October. 
According to a company spokesperson, "Home Depot's change would affect roughly 20,000 part-time workers who previously had chosen the limited liability medical plan the company offered," which, as Reuters notes, companies can no longer offer after December 31 under Obamacare.
Home Depot's current plan for part-time workers "provided coverage of up to $20,000 depending on the plan and were administered by Aetna Inc."

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Who needs a job? Democrats and Republicans are responsible!

Welfare pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, increasing long term dependency on government help, according to a new study by the libertarian think tank Cato Institute. However, “welfare benefits continue to outpace the income that most recipients can expect to earn from an entry-level job,” “And the balance between welfare and work may actually have grown worse in recent years.” Welfare in 13 states pays more than $15 an hour, compared with the federal hourly minimum wage of $7.25

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Rich and Poor Hit by Hi Rates and Taxes!

While the most sweeping provisions of the health care overhaul have not yet gone into effect, plenty of Americans will still be paying higher insurance premiums this year -- as insurance companies try to preemptively cover the cost of a tax increase included in President Obama's Affordable Care Act.
That tax doesn't take effect until next year, when other major provisions like the so-called "individual mandate" and insurance subsidies also kick in. But that hasn't stopped insurance companies from charging higher premiums this year to cover the hike, as well as the cost of ObamaCare benefits such as free birth control and preventive care.
Premiums for individuals and small businesses are projected to increase due to the tax by roughly 2 percent this year and by as much as 3.7 percent in 2023, according to a widely cited analysis by the insurance industry.
Officials will argue about who is to blame for the hike -- insurance companies for sticking customers with the cost, or the government for imposing the industry tax hike in the first place. But the projected increases are the latest sign that Americans, in exchange for expanding and strengthening insurance coverage, will in many cases be paying more.
Already, a pair of taxes has hit higher-income households to cover the law. Those making more than $250,000 are seeing a .9 percentage point increase in their Medicare tax, and another 3.8 percentage point hike on investment income.
"The goal was to make health care more affordable, but adding a tax on health insurance does the opposite, increasing the cost for families and small businesses," Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for the group America's Health Insurance Plans, said Tuesday.
Zirkelbach and others on the side of insurance companies say younger Americans will be among those facing the largest increases.
The looming tax on the insurance industry will cost health-insurance providers $8 billion in 2014, then $14.3 billion in 2018 and a total $100 billion over the next 10 years, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.
Insurance companies say they can start charging the higher premiums now because some polices bought in 2013 extend into 2014. State insurance commissioners say that practice is OK so long as the increases are pro-rated for next year. However, California Insurance Commissioner David Jones told Politico the company Anthem BlueCross is collecting money from customers that it "doesn't have to pay until 2014."
While the new law will provide insurance for millions more Americas -- and curtail the insured having to cover the medical bills of the uninsured -- insurance providers are questioning the fairness of the tax.
Further, they're raising concern that the individual requirement that people buy health insurance, set to take effect in 2014, doesn't have enough teeth to it. They argue younger Americans might be inclined to pay next year's $95 fine, and even $325 the following year, instead of more expensive insurance.
If fact, the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association has purportedly appealed to the president to add or increase penalties, including a late-enrollment fee.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/16/premiums-set-to-rise-this-year-in-run-up-to-obamacare-tax-on-insurance-industry/#ixzz2IBYE6wVI

Friday, August 10, 2012

Obamacare simply stated....

College Grads Sing about Obama they used to Know.

Union Legislation

Why do Dems oppose...New Senate Republican legislation?

SEIU President Mary Kay Henry warns that allowing employers to pay their workers more is “a federal attack on your rights at work.” Repubican legislation would allow 7.6 million middle-income workers to make more money?

One-size-fits-all contracts mean that individual effort and performance go unrewarded; the worker who takes a dozen smoke breaks earns just as much as the toiling employee who works hard and plays by the rules.



Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Washingtn Post OPEd


I too have become disillusioned.

By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?

Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.

He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass - held to a lower standard - because of the color of his skin.

Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is.

And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.

What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.

The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clich├ęs, and that's when he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.

And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.