Seven million will lose insurance under Obama health law

[rushmc 23]

Hmm
Funny what we are finding out once we learning what is in it

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/feb/5/obama-health-law-will-cost-7-million/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[OHCHUTE 0]

States are just now learning they'll have to hire hundreds of thousands of people to help people buy insurance via the exchanges and the insurance sales industry is up in arms. The healthcare act will become a jobs program, basically employing inner city people to help inner city people buy insurance that YOU AND I WILL PAY FOR.

[normiss 898]

Dude. He promised jobs!

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

basically employing inner city people to help inner city people

Come on, that's dumb. You're not even trying.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Dude. He promised jobs!

He must have promised $20K per family HC costs too

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[OHCHUTE 0]

They are called "Navigators." But most states require you to have an insurance sales license to consult or advise with insurance products. Hence the reason the insurance sales industry is upset as they will loose there jobs.

It's all about employing illegals and minorities.

Funded by tax payers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/for-insurance-exchanges-states-need-navigators--and-hiring-them-is-a-huge-task/2013/02/04/bb5e577c-6960-11e2-ada3-d86a4806d5ee_story.html

[wmw999 2,589]

Ya know, I just love that source. The Washington Times is owned by the Moonies (Unification Church). They started it because they wanted a pro-church organ in Washington DC.

At least Mother Jones admits that it's liberal...

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

Ya know, I just love that source. The Washington Times is owned by the Moonies (Unification Church). They started it because they wanted a pro-church organ in Washington DC.

At least Mother Jones admits that it's liberal...

Wendy P.

The source is Wasington Post, even more liberal than the paper you cited.

[wmw999 2,589]

a. there's no way on earth that the Washington Post is more liberal than Mother Jones !
b. The link is to the blogs page of the Washington Times, and the author's byline is Washington Times. I think that means it's not the Post (and, by the way, a blog from the editorial page means it's opinion, and not necessarily fact -- it would need to be backed up with actual data)

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

States are just now learning they'll have to hire hundreds of thousands of people to help people buy insurance via the exchanges and the insurance sales industry is up in arms. The healthcare act will become a jobs program, basically employing inner city people to help inner city people buy insurance that YOU AND I WILL PAY FOR.

That's Republican marketing spin which isn't the whole truth.

Obamacare as passed by Congress will maximize insurance company profits partially through the transfer of federal tax dollars.

Government job creation resulting from this is merely a side effect.

The Republicans don't want the whole truth known because they're also corporatists which operate the same way as Democrats.

For example in 2003 the Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican President passed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act which created Medicare Part D as a trillion-dollar-per-decade tax funnel to private corporations.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

a. there's no way on earth that the Washington Post is more liberal than Mother Jones !
b. The link is to the blogs page of the Washington Times, and the author's byline is Washington Times. I think that means it's not the Post (and, by the way, a blog from the editorial page means it's opinion, and not necessarily fact -- it would need to be backed up with actual data)

Wendy P.

Sorry, thought you were refering to the link I posted which was from the WP. Yes the original like was WT.

[NoCoSkyDiver 0]

I think that means it's not the Post (and, by the way, a blog from the editorial page means it's opinion, and not necessarily fact -- it would need to be backed up with actual data)

Wendy P.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Ya know, I just love that source. The Washington Times is owned by the Moonies (Unification Church). They started it because they wanted a pro-church organ in Washington DC.

At least Mother Jones admits that it's liberal...

Wendy P.

The info is from the CBO

The post just reported on it

Seems you have become the source critic lately

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,589]

I've done some further reading (that whole one-source thing), and while there's debate on the numbers, the claim looks valid. The IRS has taken a stance that if the single employee's health benefit is less than 9.5% of their income, they're ineligible for any assistance on paying for it. However, only that is considered in whether anyone in the family is eligible for assistance, and if the whole family participates in the health benefit, it could equal significantly more than 9.5% of the income (an income that has a lot less disposable portion given that it's supporting a family, and not a single person).

As far as source critic, I'd say that "consider the source in evaluating the data (or lack thereof)" isn't a bad thing to do. How often do you see me posting links to Huffpos or anything like that, either?

If I did, I'd put the original (i.e. actual data) sources that they cited, or else I'd identify it as clearly an opinion piece. There's nothing wrong with opinion pieces, as long as one remembers that they are self-identified as such.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)