21
   

The U.S. National Elections For President, The Senate And The House Of Representatives.

 
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jun, 2012 05:30 pm
The pundits have had there say for more than and a week n0w since the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare. Here is what I come away with:
> The election is still going to be all about the economy.

> Obama won the week only because he didn't lose. It would have been devastating if the Court had ruled against him. He now has four months to try again to sell the plan.
> The Repubs will make a half-hearted attempt in the House to repeal Obamacare in mid-July but will get nowhere.
> Romney may have to take a stand to ward off criticism about him being wishy-washy.

> The major impact will be down-ticket in the Senate and House races. The Tea Party - largely moribund - could be back. That must scare both some Democrat and Republican incumbents.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 10:03 am
The big political news of the day is a story about Bain's investment in a company that disposed of aborted fetuses -

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/romney-bain-abortion-stericycle-sec?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_c

Romney signed off on the deal personally - and this was several months after he supposedly 'left' Bain to run the olympics, as well.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 10:34 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
And once again, they don't pass a law unless they can pay for it. It would add to the deficit and once again show their hypocrisy.

True, but that hasn't harmed them politically in the past.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 01:09 pm
@Thomas,
Vice President WHO?

I don't theenk so.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jul, 2012 06:39 pm
@roger,
Any bets then on WHO Romney will pick as his running mate?
Cycloptichorn
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 3 Jul, 2012 10:30 am
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

Any bets then on WHO Romney will pick as his running mate?


Oh, it'll be someone boring like Portman or John Thune. 90% chance.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jul, 2012 10:30 am
Saw this ad today:



LOVE IT

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jul, 2012 06:40 am
Today's New York Times has an Op-Ed complaining that, once again, the Obama administration is playing rope-a-dope on its healthcare reform rather than defending it aggressively. Needless to say, I agree. How can Obama expect voters to reelect him for his policies when he himself doesn't appear to like them enough to speak up for them?

Today's New York Times wrote:
Nearly two dozen Pennsylvania residents, interviewed recently by Abby Goodnough of The Times, said they were opposed to President Obama’s health care reform law. Though almost all of them would benefit from it, they expressed fears about a loss of control over their health care that is nowhere in the law.

There are two reasons for this situation, which is repeated around the country. Business groups allied with Republicans have spent $235 million on television ads attacking the law with false accusations, with the vigorous aid of Mitt Romney and his campaign. Meanwhile, Democrats and the Obama campaign have been amazingly reluctant to speak up for the president’s biggest accomplishment and tell voters what’s in it.


Read the whole article.
realjohnboy
 
  2  
Reply Wed 4 Jul, 2012 11:09 am
@Thomas,
Good morning, Thomas. The Dems made a really bad decision ahead of the 2010 elections in not explaining the health care bill. I think that they will try to do better in the next 4 months.
The Repub establishment will rattle a few sabers next week with a repeal vote in the House but then will focus almost entirely on the economy: jobs, jobs, jobs.
They will try to stay away from health care, immigration and social issues where they might be vulnerable on the right.
Obama certainly will have a difficult time making a case to the public - largely unaware of the "good" parts of Obamacare and weary of the discussion.
The employment numbers due out Friday are likely to be quite dismal. It is not going to be good enough to blame them on the continuing European problems or the recent slowdown in China.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  4  
Reply Fri 6 Jul, 2012 03:56 pm
For What It Is Worth....
There is a little known provision in Obamacare requiring health insurance companies to spend at least 80% of the premiums on health care and no more than 20% on administrative costs (including salaries and advertising). This would be done on a state-by-state basis.
The first I heard of this was refunds in Montana and the cynic in me believed that the big insurance companies in the big states would move data around in their favor.
But today I got a letter from Anthem reporting that, in 2011, they had spent 77.8% of premiums on health care and 22.2% on administration in Virginia. As a result I got a check from them - equal to about 1/2 of one month's premium for my employees.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jul, 2012 09:10 am
@realjohnboy,
On the whole though, that does not seem to be case.

Insurance Companies Prosper, Families Suffer: Our Broken Health Insurance System

(within the article, there are refrence links which will take to a source)

On the fact checking articles concerning this, it says the problem is that since employers pay most of premiums, they will get the money. Which will make my husband's employers happy.

Quote:
OBAMA: "And by this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and CEO bonuses and not enough on your health care."

THE FACTS: Rebates are coming, but not nearly enough that many Americans are likely to get those checks and for many of those who do, the amount will be decidedly modest.

The government acknowledges it does not know how many households will see rebates in August from a provision of the law that makes insurance companies give back excess money spent on overhead instead of health care delivery. Altogether, the rebates that go out will benefit nearly 13 million people. But most of the benefit will be indirect, going to employers because they cover most of the cost of insurance provided in the workplace.

Employers can plow all the rebate money, including the workers' share, back into the company's health plan, or pass along part of it.

The government says some 4 million people who are due rebates live in households that purchased coverage directly from an insurance company, not through an employer, and experts say those households are the most likely to get a rebate check directly.

The government says the rebates have an average value of $151 per household. But employers, who typically pay 70 to 80% of premiums, are likely to get most of that


source
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jul, 2012 04:42 pm
I read your resp0nse, revelette. I hesitate to reply since my post about the subject was given a thumbs down as being, apparently, worthless.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jul, 2012 04:48 pm
@realjohnboy,
Well goodness, don't let em' get away with it. I thought it was a good post with substance enough for there to be something to talk about.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jul, 2012 04:48 pm
@revelette,
I can't say I see a problem with an employer that paid 80% of the cost getting 80% of the rebate.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jul, 2012 04:56 pm
@roger,
who said it was a problem if that is indeed the case?
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jul, 2012 05:02 pm
@revelette,
Thanks. I didn't think you were the one to thumb it down. But it would be fruitless to continue if it was you.
It was wrong for Obama to claim that 13 million people would receive a rebate. I pay 100% of the premiums for my employees - so the refund is mine. As to whether your husband gets any money back is between him and his employer. I would hope the government doesn't get involved.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jul, 2012 05:59 pm
@realjohnboy,
Actually he kind of sparsed his words, he said "nearly 13 million of you", which probably includes employers. They have acknowledged they don't know how many households will receive rebates. They said about about four million people didn't get their insurance through an employer and experts said those households will receive rebates.


Quote:
THE FACTS: Rebates are coming, but not nearly enough that many Americans are likely to get those checks and for many of those who do, the amount will be decidedly modest.

The government acknowledges it does not know how many households will see rebates in August from a provision of the law that makes insurance companies give back excess money spent on overhead instead of health care delivery. Altogether, the rebates that go out will benefit nearly 13 million people. But most of the benefit will be indirect, going to employers because they cover most of the cost of insurance provided in the workplace.

Employers can plow all the rebate money, including the workers' share, back into the company's health plan, or pass along part of it.

The government says some 4 million people who are due rebates live in households that purchased coverage directly from an insurance company, not through an employer, and experts say those households are the most likely to get a rebate check directly.


source
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jul, 2012 11:21 am
Romney's taking heat today over the fact that he apparently was still at the head of Bain for three years after he had supposedly quit working there. Gives the lie to many statements he's made.

Cycloptichorn
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jul, 2012 01:34 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Bain and Romney's aides say that there is no story here: "Let's move on." Even the fact-checkers at the Washington Post seem to agree.
But the story will dominate the news for another weekend at least and that can not be seen as good for Romney. He's getting nibbled to death by ducks on his wealth and how he got it and his handlers are not realizing that.
He refuses to deal with the issue head on and, of course, he declines to release his tax returns. Maybe he is correct in arguing that they are no one's business, but that is not playing in Peoria. His off shore bank accounts are also considered unimportant in his mind.
A new Gallup poll suggest that 20% of Independents regard his wealth to be an issue.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jul, 2012 01:53 pm
@realjohnboy,
Quote:
Bain Capital issued a similar statement, insisting Romney has had "absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm or with any of its portfolio companies since the day of his departure" in February 1999.

"Due to the sudden nature of Mr. Romney's departure, he remained the sole stockholder for a time while formal ownership was being documented and transferred to the group of partners who took over management of the firm in 1999," the company said in a statement. "Accordingly, Mr. Romney was reported in various capacities on SEC filings during this period."


source

It took three years to do that?

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/21/2021 at 12:21:45