Not to beat a dead horse. But it appears that some people out there are still not convinced that Obamacare has been a huge disaster. So to add another nail to the coffin:

Quote :

"Get Ready for Higher Obamacare Rates Next Year"

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/07/upshot/get-ready-for-higher-obamacare-rates-next-year.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

5/9/2016 2:09:57 PM

Obungler-Care has been great for my family.

My wife's employer previously did not provide Health insurance-- Instead they did this medical reimbursement garbage that didn't cover half our medical expenses. We were paying $800 a month for some dumpster fire family health plan where we never met the ridiculously high deductible. It sucked.

BUT THEN, Obamacare happened. One of the Obamacare line items required businesses such as my wife's to provide a health insurance plan to their employees.

We now pay 0 dollars a month for a far superior plan, and even have dental and vision now! No shitastic deductibles!! We Basically have $1,000 more in our pocket each month.


Go Obamacare GOooo!!!!

5/9/2016 2:46:15 PM

^^ I don't need a link to tell me health insurance rates usually increase every year. This isn't rocket science, nor is it any kind of nail in a coffin as you're hoping for

5/9/2016 2:59:21 PM

^^On behalf of all tax payers out there, you're welcome. How's it feel to be a part of the welfare class? Now go try to exercise and eat well so you and your wife are less of a strain on society.

5/9/2016 3:14:56 PM

^^^
that's good for you

not so good for all the service workers who were cut to part time so their employer doesn't need to provide them with health insurance. now they can work two jobs and buy shitty cheap insurance through the exchange. and still not be able to afford their deductible or the prescriptions they need.

but more ppl have more insurance now I guess??

should have been dropped when the public option was dropped.

[Edited on May 9, 2016 at 3:57 PM. Reason : .]

5/9/2016 3:56:48 PM

The welfare class? LOL. My wife holds doctoral degrees in mathematics and microbiology. She makes a pretty sweet mid 6 figures salary. She's a lot smarter than me.

Regardless, really classy to call somebody part of welfare class, and make some super lame rednecky joke about not getting fat, when the scary irony of it all is, that you are probably yourself a welfare class fatty.

And why should I thank taxpayers? HER private employer became legally obligated to pay for a healthcare plan due to the # of employees this quickly growing young company kept hiring.

The measly taxes you and your douchey ilk pay wouldn't be worth an hour of my wife's time, but keep at it tiger.

5/9/2016 9:37:16 PM

I read that all wrong, disregard

[Edited on May 9, 2016 at 9:48 PM. Reason : ~]

5/9/2016 9:47:24 PM

Obamacare saved my kid's life. So as far as I'm concerned HCH and adultswim can go fuck themselves.

5/9/2016 10:21:22 PM

I'm glad it helped your son. Doesn't mean it's good legislation.

Fuck me for wanting everyone to be covered and not have to worry about whether or not they can afford it.

And not have to work two jobs to pay for the insurance they can't afford to use.

[Edited on May 9, 2016 at 10:44 PM. Reason : .]

5/9/2016 10:38:06 PM

No fuck you for arguing something which represents a real step towards the goal you profess to champion.

5/9/2016 11:37:21 PM

Except it's not a step forward at all except for the pre-existing condition protection.

Everything else is worse. It incentivizes businesses to cut people's hours. Deductibles and drug prices are still unaffordable for people and rising. And now we have a legion of Democrats unwilling to consider single payer because they want to build on the fundamentally flawed ACA.

So suck on that big ole corporate insurance cock all you want. It's a fucked system and clearly you don't know anyone well enough who has experienced it first hand.

[Edited on May 10, 2016 at 12:08 AM. Reason : .]

5/10/2016 12:07:34 AM

if obama and democrats had the goal to insure everyone. they would've passed something that insured everyone. they had an unrestricted blank slate and this is what they gave us so its worth pointing out its flaws.

5/10/2016 1:17:38 AM

All I know is my insurance premiums went up 50% this year so thanks Obama!

5/10/2016 9:01:37 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/12/politics/transgender-bathrooms-obama-administration/index.html

Way to create an issue you know Republicans are going to come out of the woodwork for to distract from the disaster that is the 2016 election.

And -100

5/13/2016 2:26:19 PM

I don't foresee this causing Republicans to come out of the woodwork any more than they would have otherwise, but I may be giving Republicans too much credit.

5/13/2016 2:37:53 PM

^^ which is absolutely pathetic

but they've shown plenty that they are absolutely shameless with their awfulness

5/13/2016 3:28:57 PM

Quote :

"Everything else is worse. It incentivizes businesses to cut people's hours. Deductibles and drug prices are still unaffordable for people and rising. And now we have a legion of Democrats unwilling to consider single payer because they want to build on the fundamentally flawed ACA. "

Literally none of this is true. Generally, every single criticism of the ACA is based on a lie made by Republicans before it was passed or implemented. None of the doomsday predictions have come true, it's actually been more effective at controlling costs than anyone expected, and tens of millions of people who didn't have access to affordable healthcare do now thanks to the law. By literally every single objective measure it's been an unqualified success. Suck the man's big black cock.

[Edited on May 13, 2016 at 4:29 PM. Reason : .]

5/13/2016 4:28:57 PM

Literally all of it is true. Do you know anyone who works retail? Have they told you about the 30 hour ceiling?

Hours:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2015/01/13/obamacares-impact-companies-cut-hours-for-part-time-workers/#471973be4ab6

Drug prices:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-prescription-drug-prices-0316-biz-20160315-story.html

We are voting for single payer healthcare in Colorado and our Democratic Senator and Governor have spoken against it. I'm not going to pull up quotes nationwide, but the Democratic frontrunner doesn't even support single payer.

http://www.coloradoindependent.com/158926/michael-bennet-coloradocare-single-payer
http://www.coloradoindependent.com/157304/guv-bashes-colorado-care-shocking-fellow-dems

5/13/2016 4:50:14 PM

^if only 1 state had single payer I bet a significant number of unemployed sick people would move there. Funny it's amendment 69, should have went 420 cause you high if you have think that's a good idea

5/14/2016 1:36:20 PM

Its kind of unreal how no one has called him out about no biots on the ground. Its such an obvious case of media immunity

5/14/2016 1:44:59 PM

^^
http://coloradocareyes.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Green-Booklet-5_5_16.pdf

page 7

don't parrot dumb insurance company lies plz

[Edited on May 14, 2016 at 2:50 PM. Reason : .]

5/14/2016 2:49:04 PM

Whoa. Senate just unanimously passed the "sue the Saudis" bill that Obama has vowed to vetoe. Not a single Democrat voted against.

That's a big political slap in the face.

I don't think it's a good bill, it probably clashes with international law regarding sovereign immunity.

5/17/2016 4:49:37 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/18/us/politics/senate-passes-bill-that-would-expose-saudi-arabia-to-legal-jeopardy-over-9-11.html?_r=0

Quote :

"He also said he believed that Saudi Arabia’s threat to pull its assets, a concern of the administration, was “hollow,” adding, “It will hurt them a lot more than it hurts us.” Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, said the legislation was written in such a way that Americans would not be subject to legal action taken by other nations. “I do believe that there’s going to be some saber rattling, some threats, but I think that they are hollow,” Mr. Cornyn said."

It's not a bad concept necessarily to hold state sponsors of terrorism accountable, but the issue with doing so in the court system rather than diplomatic systems is that it could result in retaliatory measures by other countries where the US has ever had any type of military intervention that killed innocent civilians.

Seems risky, but could be a very manageable risk, i don't really know anything about how international legal systems actually work.

5/17/2016 5:46:46 PM

I would love it if this meant we actually had to declare war or seek out something like specific authority to pursue military action against a group.

Ultimately even if this does pass it's probably going to be unenforceable. Individuals have an incredibly hard time trying to seek legal remedy of any kind against a sovereign state.

5/17/2016 6:00:14 PM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/overtime-pay-may-become-reality-for-more-us-workers/2016/05/17/e7682168-1c8b-11e6-82c2-a7dcb313287d_story.html

It's funny to watch Republicans squirm trying to reflexively argue people shouldn't be paid for working overtime. LOL

[Edited on May 18, 2016 at 2:38 PM. Reason : ]

5/18/2016 2:37:44 PM

Quote :

"they may have to switch some salaried workers to hourly positions to afford the new threshold. And instead of seeing bigger paychecks, some salaried workers may be assigned fewer hours, they said."

Thanks Obama.

5/22/2016 9:41:16 PM

being assigned fewer hours seems like a win in my book.

5/22/2016 10:49:34 PM

Why stop at 47k? Why not make it 120k? What is so special about people making less than 47k vs someone making 85k? Why shouldn't the 85k person get paid overtime?

5/23/2016 10:17:32 AM

lmgtfy.com:
https://www.dol.gov/whd/overtime/nprm2015/faq.htm#s2

Quote :

"1. Q. What is the proposed standard salary level? A. In order to re-establish the effectiveness of the salary level test as a ready method of drawing a line separating exempt from nonexempt employees, the Department proposes to set the standard salary level at the 40th percentile of weekly earnings for full-time salaried workers. Using 2013 data, the proposed salary amount would equal $921 per week (which is $47,892 annually for a full-year worker). Should the Department decide after consideration of comments received on the NPRM to set the standard salary level in the final rule at the 40th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time salaried workers, the Department estimates that a 2016 level may be about $970 a week, or $50,440 a year. 2. Q. Why is the Department proposing to set the standard salary level at the 40th percentile of weekly earnings for full-time salaried workers? A. The Department believes that the 40th percentile of weekly earnings for full-time salaried workers represents the most appropriate line of demarcation between exempt and nonexempt employees. This amount effectively distinguishes between employees who may meet the duties requirements of the white collar exemptions and those who likely do not, without necessitating a return to the more detailed "long" duties test that existed before 2004. This salary level minimizes the risk that employees legally entitled to overtime will be subject to misclassification based solely on the salaries they receive, without excluding from exemption an unacceptably high number of employees who meet the duties test. Currently, approximately 85 percent of white collar salaried workers who fail the duties test- and therefore are entitled to overtime protection- earn at least $455 per week. Because the current salary level is only screening from exemption approximately 15 percent of overtime-eligible white collar salaried employees, it is not an effective test for exemption and does not serve the intended purpose of simplifying application of the exemption by reducing the number of employees for whom employers must perform a duties analysis. Increasing the standard salary level to the 40th percentile of weekly earnings for full-time salaried workers would reduce the number of white collar employees who do not meet the duties test but earn at least the proposed salary level to approximately 41 percent. "

[Edited on May 23, 2016 at 10:24 AM. Reason : .]

5/23/2016 10:23:16 AM

Thanks,

I wonder what the "duties test" entails. I could probably find it somewhere.

5/23/2016 10:31:24 AM

IF ONLY THERE WAS SOME WAY TO FIND OUT
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=DOL+duties+test

5/23/2016 10:47:19 AM

Hey, that's what I said, I said I could look for it. No need to be a smartass.

5/23/2016 1:37:08 PM

QE was a mistake, it's lead to the record levels of inequality we're seeing:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-15/where-deflation-comes

We should have let the economy be deflationary for a few years, give wage earners an effect boost, reduce the wealth of capital owners allowing wage owners to buy some of it up, then considered QE.

5/24/2016 12:27:12 PM

That article is a pretty poor attack on the Federal Reserve. Bernanke walked around with the nickname "Helicoptor Ben" for years because he advocated for some kind of direct stimulus (typically either as tax cuts for the bottom 80% of the country or as a direct infrastructure stimulus) for years. The FED just doesn't have those powers.

In fact, those types of actions were hamstrung by both conservatives, who can't seem to understand anything beyond simple supply side economics, and the inflationistas/goldbug crowd. Zerohedge is squarely in the crowd that kept crying that runaway inflation was imminent and helicopter drops would lead us to Zimbabwean money difficulties.

I hope they're starting to realize just how wrong they were.

And how exactly are wages going to be boosted when unemployment is at 15% and there is massive slack in the labor market? Because that's exactly where a deflating economy would lead us.

5/24/2016 12:51:30 PM

It's zerohedge. Poor attacks on the Fed is what they do.

5/24/2016 12:53:29 PM

There's other groups that have the same ideas about deflation, you can ignore the zero hedge link if you want.

But I think it's possible that with a moderate enough level of deflation, we would have seen consumer spending rebound more organically, as poor and middle class people effectively made more money while wealthier people loss wealth in investments and other capital.

Is it worse to have a higher level of unemployment for a bit, or a record high level of inequality, where there's no political motivation for "wealth redistribution"? Wealthy people don't like to lose wealth, and they would have either turtled up hoping for a rebound, or more likely I think try to capitalize on a deflationary economy.

5/24/2016 12:58:37 PM

Zerohedge definitely has an agenda but they put out some of the better economical analysis. Just gotta understand what source you are reading.

5/24/2016 1:06:47 PM

^^some rich people lose money in deflationary environments, but many are able to score BIG on volatility in the market. In fact that's where the most significant gains come from. They can roll the dice and attempt to pinpoint where the gains are going to be. The rest of us are more spread out and diversified in the market and tend to do better when the economy across the board is on the rise.

And again, poors like myself only make gains when we have jobs. In a deflationary economy unemployment increases, see: most of Europe.

^I read it on a somewhat regular basis actually, but it just blows my mind when the exact same author posts an article like the above while only a day before was warning us about the upcoming "wheelbarrow economy" in Venezuela that is just around the corner here in the US. How is one able to parse those two articles right next to each other?

5/24/2016 1:20:33 PM

Well they actually have multiple authors posting under the same pseudonym so it could have been different people. I don't take everything they say as correct, just saying I have seen some very insightful stuff on there regarding economic analysis.

5/24/2016 4:40:07 PM

This sums up a good bit of Obama's time in office, especially in regards to the military/foreign interventions/etc

Makes an unprecedented visit to Hiroshima and calls for a post nuclear world so no one has to witness nuclear horrors again, a very public display on a feel good topic that generally has a lot of support from the public,

Just months before requested in his budget the largest re-build-up in American nuclear arms that even made some in the Pentagon balk (looking to spend trillions on nucs and delivery systems over the next few decades).

Our shitty media covers the former in-depth, but somehow leaves out the latter in their columns.

SMH

5/27/2016 9:03:19 AM

Quote :

" looking to spend up to a trillion on nucs and delivery systems over the next few decades"

5/27/2016 9:26:40 AM

needed

5/27/2016 9:37:02 AM

[Edited on May 27, 2016 at 9:49 AM. Reason : betterer]

5/27/2016 9:43:20 AM

^^^some have estimated it to be the largest single government expense over the next three decades, it's going to be an extremely significant priority going forward

^possibly needed, but I'm more pissed that he can call for a "moral revolution" against nuclear weapons, while simultaneously making building bombs a primary military priority. Actually what I'm really pissed about is how this argument isn't even reported on. I'm hardly the most tuned into military policy, but even I realized the "douchebag Steve ness" of Obama's statements at Hiroshima.

[Edited on May 27, 2016 at 9:44 AM. Reason : Holy giant meaningless chart batman]

5/27/2016 9:43:39 AM

chart is meant to convey that the US has just one ICBM that was initially deployed in the 70s, while Russia has been updating theirs many times over

similarly, our SSBNs are 15-30 years old and their maintenance availabilities are getting longer (more time in port each time they return)

we are WAY behind the curve in terms of updating our nuclear enterprise

we definitely do not need as many as we had in the 60s, but the ones we do have need to be improved

5/27/2016 9:51:34 AM

That's all fine and good, but the question is should you be able to give a speech about having the "courage" for a "moral revolution" that moves us as a planet beyond nuclear weapons while simultaneously suggesting we spend obscene amounts of money on building nuclear weapons and delivery devices?


Basically, Obama giving meaningful speeches about what our priorities should be, but those priorities never showing up in his budget or the nitty gritty of his policy proposals has been a hallmark of his administration.

[Edited on May 27, 2016 at 10:30 AM. Reason : Clearly I meant scumbag Steve, not douchebag Steve ]

5/27/2016 10:27:10 AM

^Welcome to the democratic party

5/27/2016 10:50:12 AM

as long as non-state actors seek to get those weapons, we will never get rid of them

pandora's box was opened in the '30s and '40s with the development and use of the bomb

5/27/2016 12:57:45 PM

Quote :

"Blue Cross incurs $280M loss on ACA customers; files for 19% premium hike"

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2016/05/31/blue-cross-incurs-280m-loss-on-obamacare-customers.html?ana=twt

More nails for the coffin.

5/31/2016 1:38:25 PM

I'm sure their "technical difficulties" in transitioning to their new Account system had nothing to do with the loss.

5/31/2016 1:53:13 PM