Political Hippo Circle Jerk - America, farg YEAH!

[ice grillin you]

They handled it how the government handles anything

thats pretty much the point....many people were already fearful of the govt taking over healthcare and farging it up because thats what the govt does....then to have one farg up after another during the implementation just gave creedence to all the fears regardless of how irrational many of them were/are

[PhillyPhreak54]

Just got my paper from the office on the changes to our insurance this year...to explain the increases they say

"Due to healthcare reform, this year the overall health plan will need to pay two fees. One of the fees will help fund research and the other will help fund the cost of high cost claimants in individual market plans (not our plan). These fees add an additional cost to the overall health plan of $114,000.

One of the interesting features of healthcare reform is that there is no requirement for plans to offer coverage to spouses...."

and then some more mumbo jumbo.

The breakdown;

$500 current deductible (for in and out of network) - will now be $500 in network and $1000 out of network
$1000 out of pocket maximum currently - will now be $2500 in network and $6000 out of network (jeeeeeeeesus christ)

This is for single people...spouses is even more and then they charge $75 per month extra.

[Munson]

Sounds about right, especially the part about in network vs. out of network. That's one of the big ways they're trying to reign in the increase in health costs every year.

Do you know if your deductible goes towards your out of pocket maximum? Also would be curious to see if you pay co-insurance after the deductible or if most of the basic stuff is covered fully.

[PhillyPhreak54]

Yes the deductible goes towards it.

The co-insurance is current 10% in and 30% out and now it'll be 20% in and 50% out.

So basically if I get sick anywhere but Texas I'm dropping bricks o' cash to whichever lucky hospital gets me.

We have Blue Cross of Western NY because that is where the parent company is

[Munson]

As much as I read about health care, I never quite understood how the out of state stuff works, since health insurance is so state-based. Doesn't seem right that getting sick while out of your home state will automatically cost you more because if the in network/out of network shtein because you're not at home. I think some plans (HMO's?) grant exemptions for emergencies, but still.

Sounds like your company saw their health care costs going up and decided to pass the lionshare of them onto you and the other employees, instead of eating some or all of them themselves. ACA is a perfect scapegoat for that.

[Geowhizzer]

Funny thing is, my insurace went up much more before the ACA than it has the past few years. 

[Rome]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/us/politics/paul-ryan-budget.html?action=click&contentCollection=Media&region=Footer&module=TopNews&pgtype=article

farging disgusting.   people like paul ryan should be sent to siberia naked.

[ice grillin you]

hes such a pos

[PhillyPhreak54]

http://weknowawesome.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Biden-This-farging-Guy.gif

damn...change the farging to the real word

[Seabiscuit36]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/02/supreme-court-campaign-finance/4481675/
Nice to see History repeat itself.  This country is farged

Supreme Court lifts ban on aggregate campaign donations
Richard Wolf and Fredreka Schouten, USA TODAY 12:07 p.m. EDT April 2, 2014
The decision represents another step toward easing decades-old restrictions on political contributions that were designed to combat corruption
Campaign finance

    Justices ease ground rules for wealthy donors
    Base limits per donation remain, but overall limits lifted
    Decision marks new round in debate over money in politics

SHARE 3468 CONNECT 375 TWEET 203 COMMENTEMAILMORE

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court took another step Wednesday toward giving wealthy donors more freedom to influence federal elections.

The justices ruled 5-4, in a decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, that limits on the total amount of money donors can give to all candidates, committees and political parties are unconstitutional. The decision leaves in place the base limits on what can be given to each individual campaign.

"The government has a strong interest, no less critical to our democratic system, in combating corruption and its appearance," Roberts wrote. "We have, however, held that this interest must be limited to a specific kind of corruption — quid pro quo corruption — in order to ensure that the government's efforts do not have the effect of restricting the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them."

The decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, which came nearly six months after it was argued at the beginning of the court's term in October, marks the latest round in the bitter national debate over the role of money in American politics.

More immediately, it alters the political landscape ahead of November's midterm elections and could transform state contests as well. Legal experts said the ruling also erodes aggregate contribution limits imposed by the District of Columbia and 12 states, ranging from Connecticut to Wyoming.

STORY: Activist lawyer aims to drop campaign restrictions

MORE: Supreme Court weighs limits on campaign donations

It's the most important campaign-finance ruling since the high court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts independently to influence elections.

The court's four liberal justices dissented vehemently from Roberts' ruling. Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the minority, said the decision "understates the importance of protecting the political integrity of our governmental institutions."

"Taken together with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, today's decision eviscerates our nation's campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve," Breyer wrote.

The case pitted the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech – which the justices previously have equated with spending money in elections – against the government's interest in preventing political corruption.

"Today, the court made clear that restraints on the political speech of those whose views you don't like must fail," said Dan Backer, the lawyer who brought the case. "Free speech is the right of all Americans, and not a revocable grant from the government of the day."

The decision was a victory for the Republican National Committee, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, and Alabama businessman Shaun McCutcheon, who challenged the $123,200 cap on contributions an individual can give to all federal candidates, parties and political action committees in a two-year election cycle.

McCutcheon's challenge did not extend to the $2,600 limit a donor can give to a federal candidate in each primary and general election or the $32,400 limit that can go to a national party committee, because of concerns about corruption that are at the root of the federal law. In his ruling, Roberts reiterated the importance of those limits in protecting against political corruption.

"Our cases have held that Congress may regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption," he said. "Congress may not regulate contributions simply to reduce the amount of money in politics, or to restrict the political participation of some in order to enhance the relative influence of others."

Under the court's ruling, donors will have to stick to that $2,600 limit but can give to as many campaigns as they want without worrying about the previous $123,200 ceiling. The decision also could jeopardize separate contribution caps in at least a dozen states, from Arizona to Wyoming.

"While I understand some base limits on the dollar amount of single contributions, limits to the overall number of candidates, parties and committees are nothing more than unnecessary limits to First Amendment freedom," McCutcheon said in reaction to the ruling. "The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the unconstitutionality of aggregate limits."

McConnell, perhaps the nation's leading opponent of campaign finance limits, noted the ruling doesn't lift restrictions on the most corruptible contributions.

"Let me be clear for all those who would criticize the decision: It does not permit one more dime to be given to an individual candidate or a party," he said. "It just respects the constitutional rights of individuals to decide how many to support."

The limits on campaign contributions had stood for nearly 40 years. The high court drew a distinction between those contributions, which it said could lead to corruption, and money spent independently in its landmark 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling. Independent spending was expanded in the Citizens United case to include unlimited spending by corporations and labor unions.

While four of the court's conservative justices joined the Roberts ruling, the fifth, Justice Clarence Thomas, went even further and said he would have voted to strike down Buckley. Thomas said there should be no difference in the regulation of spending and contributions.

"This case represents yet another missed opportunity to right the course of our campaign finance jurisprudence by restoring a standard that is faithful to the First Amendment," Thomas wrote. He agreed only with Roberts' decision, not its rationale.

Defenders of government limits have warned that so-called "joint fundraising committees" now will be able to funnel up to $3.6 million from one donor to any vulnerable candidates.

"With its Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions, the Supreme Court has turned our representative system of government into a sandbox for America's billionaires and millionaires to play in," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the public interest group Democracy 21. "The court's decisions have empowered a new class of American political oligarchs."

But opponents of government limits contended few if any donors or committees would bother to concoct such a system.

Nearly 1.3 million people donated more than $200 to federal candidates, party committees and PACs last year, according to an analysis by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks political money. Only about 600 hit the maximum donation limit to federal candidates in the 2012 elections, the center found.

McCutcheon and his allies also argued that lifting the cumulative cap on contributions might help candidates and national parties counter the rising influence of new "super PACs." Those entities, ushered in partly by Citizens United and a separate lower court decision in 2010, can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money independent of particular candidates.

[Rome]

I have two words for you... PELICAN.  BRIEF.

[ice grillin you]

maryland passed both a decriminalization of weed today as well as a minimum wage hike......YAY

[PhillyPhreak54]

http://nymag.com/news/features/obama-presidency-race-2014-4/

[ice grillin you]

In an interview with the Daily Times Herald, Iowa Republican senate candidate Sam Clovis claimed that President Obama's race is saving him from impeachment.

Clovis on Obama impeachment by Dailytimesherald

Clovis said, "I don't think so, and I'll tell you why. It's not that what he has done would not rise to the level where it might be impeachable. I don't think it's a practical, pragmatic issue. And simply because I don't think the nation is ready for it. You know, within this generation, we went through the impeachment of a president, and it didn't end well, and now we have a situation where race is thrown into the cards as well. Whether we like it or not, race is an issue."

Clovis was asked if Obama was white would he be impeached. He answered, "I wouldn't say that I think people would."

He was asked if he thought the only reason why Congress isn't going after impeachment is the color of the president's skin. Clovis answered,"I would say there are people in the House of Representatives right now that would very much like to take the opportunity to start the process. And I think the reason that they're not is because they're concerned about the media."

[MDS]

some people just dont like black people, huh?