Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Straw Man on November 21, 2013, 11:04:05 AM
-
Harry Reid finally found his balls
Good thing because Repubs would have done it next time they had the majority anyway
-
Oh really.....I suspect not. But thats based on history. Ur president nows he's done.....
-
Oh really.....I suspect not. But thats based on history. Ur president nows he's done.....
I assume you're aware of how much more the Repubs have blocked Obama's nominations than Dems ever did to Republican POTUS's
It's become completely dysfunctional
Repubs were given many chances and chose obstruction over governing
-
What happened?
-
I assume you're aware of how much more the Repubs have blocked Obama's nominations than Dems ever did to Republican POTUS's
It's become completely dysfunctional
Repubs were given many chances and chose obstruction over governing
The folks he chose were wack job leftists...anybody that Bush chose that was far right got equal treatment. Now you guys own this along with Obamacare...2014 can't come soon enough
-
The folks he chose were wack job leftists...anybody that Bush chose that was far right got equal treatment. Now you guys own this along with Obamacare...2014 can't come soon enough
~ 25% of the judgeships on the DC Circuit were vacant
Repubs are simply trying to keep the government from working
-
Packing the courts with wackjob leftists.......that sounds to me like they did exactly what we sent them here to do.
-
Harry Reid in 2005.
"If there were ever an example of an abuse of power, this is it," said Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). "The filibuster is the last check we have against the abuse of power in Washington."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/17/AR2005051701425.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/17/AR2005051701425.html)
Harry gonna Harry.
In 05' it was bad. Now in 13' rolls are reversed and dirt harry wants to change the rules.
Makes me sick.
-
Harry Reid in 2005.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/17/AR2005051701425.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/17/AR2005051701425.html)
Harry gonna Harry.
In 05' it was bad. Now in 13' rolls are reversed and dirt harry wants to change the rules.
Makes me sick.
Daaaamn what a hypocrite....
-
168 presidential nominees have been filibustered under all presidents,82 under Obama. something had to be done
-
Forward to Communism
-
168 presidential nominees have been filibustered under all presidents,82 under Obama. something had to be done
Yup....maybe change the people he was nominating because their dangerous
-
McConnell suggested that Democrats want to push for filibuster reform simply because they need something to distract angry Americans from the truth about Obamacare.
“I’d probably looking for an exit, too, if I had supported this law. I’d be looking to change the subject, just as Senate Denocrats have been doing with their threats of going nuclear and changing the Senate rules on nominations,” the Senate Minority Leader said. “Millions of Americans are hurting because of a law that Washington Democrats forced upon them, and what do they do about it? They cook up some fake fight over judges.”
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/11/21/2978371/mcconnell-nuclear-option-objection-obamacare/
-
McConnell suggested that Democrats want to push for filibuster reform simply because they need something to distract angry Americans from the truth about Obamacare.
“I’d probably looking for an exit, too, if I had supported this law. I’d be looking to change the subject, just as Senate Denocrats have been doing with their threats of going nuclear and changing the Senate rules on nominations,” the Senate Minority Leader said. “Millions of Americans are hurting because of a law that Washington Democrats forced upon them, and what do they do about it? They cook up some fake fight over judges.”
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/11/21/2978371/mcconnell-nuclear-option-objection-obamacare/
These liberal communists and traitors and thugs know that in 2014 that are going to get wiped out ala 2010
-
McConnell suggested that Democrats want to push for filibuster reform simply because they need something to distract angry Americans from the truth about Obamacare.
“I’d probably looking for an exit, too, if I had supported this law. I’d be looking to change the subject, just as Senate Denocrats have been doing with their threats of going nuclear and changing the Senate rules on nominations,” the Senate Minority Leader said. “Millions of Americans are hurting because of a law that Washington Democrats forced upon them, and what do they do about it? They cook up some fake fight over judges.”
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/11/21/2978371/mcconnell-nuclear-option-objection-obamacare/
quoting the turtle man :D :D :D :D
-
These liberal communists and traitors and thugs know that in 2014 that are going to get wiped out ala 2010
landslide coming :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
I assume you're aware of how much more the Repubs have blocked Obama's nominations than Dems ever did to Republican POTUS's
It's become completely dysfunctional
Repubs were given many chances and chose obstruction over governing
Maybe its because as dumb as the Republicans are they are nothing compared to the current socialist clown show going on.
Ultimately though good riddance to a stupid rule, I just hope it isn't a set-up for a bunch of lame duck appointments that are goings to screw everyone over further.
-
I read this, You abuse a process too long and it turns against you
-
These same leftists are going to scream like babies when the gop wins the senate and keeps the house and shuts down obamas last two miserable and worthless years in office.
-
These same leftists are going to scream like babies when the gop wins the senate and keeps the house and shuts down obamas last two miserable and worthless years in office.
landslide coming :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
landslide coming :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Yup, that's right:
Obamacare Delays May Create Election Bomb for Democrats
Some of Obamacare’s most damaging political narratives will be getting a fresh look right before next year’s midterms, thanks to delays in the law’s implementation.
Canceled insurance plans are the most obvious example. President Obama said last week that insurers can un-cancel certain policies for another year, a move largely designed to appease nervous Democrats. But a one-year delay simply means that cancellation notices will resume next October—just weeks before many of those same Democrats will face voters for the first time since voting to pass the Affordable Care Act.
And that’s not the only political threat lurking just ahead of the 2014 midterms. The White House also delayed the law’s employer mandate until 2015. That means employers will be deciding in mid- to late 2014 whether they’re going to offer health benefits under the mandate—and whether to cut employees’ hours to avoid providing them with health care.
“They’re concentrating everything in the fall of next year, and that’s a very dangerous time to be doing it,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a conservative economist who leads the American Action Forum.
The fact that millions of individual insurance policies were canceled this year was not a side effect of the Affordable Care Act; rather, it was one of the trade-offs required to make the law’s coverage guarantees work.
Those trade-offs can be politically difficult, but prolonging the issue until next year “just extends the pain for them,” Holtz-Eakin said. He was surprised that the administration and congressional Democrats didn’t simply bite the bullet now—a year before the midterms. He called it the “rip-the-Band-Aid approach.”
“This is one where, inexplicably, the wheels came off. They usually think through the politics of these things pretty clearly,” Holtz-Eakin said.
Still, although plans will have to be canceled again next October, there are reasons to believe the issue won’t be as damaging as it has been over the past two months. For starters, it’s not clear how many plans will actually be extended for another year. Several states have rejected Obama’s proposal, and insurers aren’t sure whether it’s worth the trouble to resurrect policies they have already canceled.
Consumers whose plans are canceled next year will also have a much easier time finding a replacement. Because HealthCare.gov, the primary Obamacare enrollment website, was functioning so poorly this year, consumers were seeing their plans canceled yet had no easy way to even find out whether they could get tax subsidies to help buy a new policy.
Jim Manley, a Democratic strategist and a former communications adviser to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Democrats’ anxiety over plan cancellations will subside if the administration meets its goal for fixing HealthCare.gov by the end of this month.
The impact of the employer mandate is less clear. Tracy Watts, who leads the national health reform team at the Mercer consulting firm, said employers generally firm up their health care plans by Labor Day, with some smaller firms waiting until October.
The biggest effect of the employer mandate, she said, will be on the roughly one-third of employers affected by the law’s definition of a full-time employee. Businesses must provide coverage to everyone who works at least 30 hours per week (not 40), a threshold most employers aren’t used to.
Republicans have already seized on anecdotal reports of businesses capping workers at 29 hours per week to avoid providing health care benefits. Mercer’s research suggests that’s not a common practice—only about 10 percent of employers say they’re considering capping workers’ hours instead of providing health benefits, according to the firm’s surveys.
“Most of them are planning to extend benefits to that segment of their workforce,” Watts said.
But Republicans surely will still attack Democrats over anecdotal reports of people having their hours cut. Some of the highest-profile anecdotes before the mandate was delayed came from partisan business owners who threatened to cut workers’ hours for political purposes, like the Florida restaurant owner who said he would cut workers’ hours and add an “Obamacare surcharge” to his customers’ bills.
Moreover, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is expecting deeper cuts than Mercer. The chamber’s surveys found that more than 20 percent of franchise owners said they have already replaced full-time workers with part-timers to avoid the coverage mandate.
Manley said he’s not worried about the employer mandate’s timing. The vast majority of employers already provide health insurance, he noted, and modestly extending those benefits isn’t a major change to the health care system.
“The Republicans are going to seize on everything they can, but I’m not so sure I see the employer mandate as a problem,” Manley said “It’s not a dramatic policy change. It’s something folks are comfortable with.”
This article appears in the November 21, 2013, edition of NJ Daily as Obamacare Delays Push Tough Issues Closer to Elections.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/obamacare-delays-may-create-election-bomb-for-democrats-20131120
-
Yup, that's right:
Obamacare Delays May Create Election Bomb for Democrats
Some of Obamacare’s most damaging political narratives will be getting a fresh look right before next year’s midterms, thanks to delays in the law’s implementation.
Canceled insurance plans are the most obvious example. President Obama said last week that insurers can un-cancel certain policies for another year, a move largely designed to appease nervous Democrats. But a one-year delay simply means that cancellation notices will resume next October—just weeks before many of those same Democrats will face voters for the first time since voting to pass the Affordable Care Act.
And that’s not the only political threat lurking just ahead of the 2014 midterms. The White House also delayed the law’s employer mandate until 2015. That means employers will be deciding in mid- to late 2014 whether they’re going to offer health benefits under the mandate—and whether to cut employees’ hours to avoid providing them with health care.
“They’re concentrating everything in the fall of next year, and that’s a very dangerous time to be doing it,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a conservative economist who leads the American Action Forum.
The fact that millions of individual insurance policies were canceled this year was not a side effect of the Affordable Care Act; rather, it was one of the trade-offs required to make the law’s coverage guarantees work.
Those trade-offs can be politically difficult, but prolonging the issue until next year “just extends the pain for them,” Holtz-Eakin said. He was surprised that the administration and congressional Democrats didn’t simply bite the bullet now—a year before the midterms. He called it the “rip-the-Band-Aid approach.”
“This is one where, inexplicably, the wheels came off. They usually think through the politics of these things pretty clearly,” Holtz-Eakin said.
Still, although plans will have to be canceled again next October, there are reasons to believe the issue won’t be as damaging as it has been over the past two months. For starters, it’s not clear how many plans will actually be extended for another year. Several states have rejected Obama’s proposal, and insurers aren’t sure whether it’s worth the trouble to resurrect policies they have already canceled.
Consumers whose plans are canceled next year will also have a much easier time finding a replacement. Because HealthCare.gov, the primary Obamacare enrollment website, was functioning so poorly this year, consumers were seeing their plans canceled yet had no easy way to even find out whether they could get tax subsidies to help buy a new policy.
Jim Manley, a Democratic strategist and a former communications adviser to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Democrats’ anxiety over plan cancellations will subside if the administration meets its goal for fixing HealthCare.gov by the end of this month.
The impact of the employer mandate is less clear. Tracy Watts, who leads the national health reform team at the Mercer consulting firm, said employers generally firm up their health care plans by Labor Day, with some smaller firms waiting until October.
The biggest effect of the employer mandate, she said, will be on the roughly one-third of employers affected by the law’s definition of a full-time employee. Businesses must provide coverage to everyone who works at least 30 hours per week (not 40), a threshold most employers aren’t used to.
Republicans have already seized on anecdotal reports of businesses capping workers at 29 hours per week to avoid providing health care benefits. Mercer’s research suggests that’s not a common practice—only about 10 percent of employers say they’re considering capping workers’ hours instead of providing health benefits, according to the firm’s surveys.
“Most of them are planning to extend benefits to that segment of their workforce,” Watts said.
But Republicans surely will still attack Democrats over anecdotal reports of people having their hours cut. Some of the highest-profile anecdotes before the mandate was delayed came from partisan business owners who threatened to cut workers’ hours for political purposes, like the Florida restaurant owner who said he would cut workers’ hours and add an “Obamacare surcharge” to his customers’ bills.
Moreover, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is expecting deeper cuts than Mercer. The chamber’s surveys found that more than 20 percent of franchise owners said they have already replaced full-time workers with part-timers to avoid the coverage mandate.
Manley said he’s not worried about the employer mandate’s timing. The vast majority of employers already provide health insurance, he noted, and modestly extending those benefits isn’t a major change to the health care system.
“The Republicans are going to seize on everything they can, but I’m not so sure I see the employer mandate as a problem,” Manley said “It’s not a dramatic policy change. It’s something folks are comfortable with.”
This article appears in the November 21, 2013, edition of NJ Daily as Obamacare Delays Push Tough Issues Closer to Elections.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/obamacare-delays-may-create-election-bomb-for-democrats-20131120
problem is your base is dying off, the old white people :D
-
problem is your base is dying off, the old white people :D
Sorry scumbag - even middle class latinos and Asians and everyone else getting wiped out by kenyacare is not amused
-
Sorry scumbag - even middle class latinos and Asians and everyone else getting wiped out by kenyacare is not amused
Kenycare....yessssssssss .
The other issue with Obamacare is that...its called obamacare. This guy is such an idiot. Did anybody in his circle of ballwashers atleast try and explain to his galatic highness that if this goes bad, naming it after himself is not ever a good idea?
-
Sorry scumbag - even middle class latinos and Asians and everyone else getting wiped out by kenyacare is not amused
good luck, your going to need it,it's going be fun to see the next nutjog the repubs run
-
problem is your base is dying off, the old white people :D
What is "your base"? Disagreeing with the Obama administration's policies does not automatically make me a Republican.
Ralph Nader is a liberal, yet he believes now that Obama is much worse than Bush. Does that make Ralph Nader a Republican?
-
What is "your base"? Disagreeing with the Obama administration's policies does not automatically make me a Republican.
Ralph Nader is a liberal, yet he believes now that Obama is much worse than Bush. Does that make Ralph Nader a Republican?
well maybe not you, but most on here that are complaining about this are repubs
-
well maybe not you, but most on here that are complaining about this are repubs
Hey commie
SENATOR BARACK OBAMA (D-ILLINOIS): The American people sent us here to be their voice. They understand that those voices can at times become loud and argumentative, but they also hope that we can disagree without being disagreeable. […]
What they don't expect is for one party - be it Republican or Democrat - to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet. […]
The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that the majority chooses to end the filibuster. If they choose to change the rules and put an end to Democratic debate, then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse.
Now I understand that Republicans are getting a lot of pressure to do this from factions outside the chamber, but we need to rise above the "ends justify the means" mentality because we're here to answer to the people - all of the people - not just the ones that are wearing our particular party label. […]
If the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party, and the millions of Americans who asked us to be their voice, I fear that the already partisan atmosphere in Washington will be poisoned to the point where no one will be able to agree on anything. That doesn't serve anyone's best interests, and it certainly isn't what the patriots who founded this democracy had in mind. We owe the people who sent us here more than that - we owe them much more.
That was Obama in 2005 when his Party was in the minority. He even confirmed this in an email message to the American Thinker's Randall Hoven on June 29 of that year:
From: senator_obama@obama.senate.gov[mailto:senator_obama@obama.senate.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 11:02 AM
To: Hoven, Randall M
Subject: Message from Senator Barack Obama
Dear Randall:
Thank you for your letter. I appreciate hearing from you.
I recognize that the filibuster can be used for unfortunate purposes. However, I am also aware that the Founding Fathers established the filibuster as a means of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority -- and that protection, with some changes, has been in place for over 200 years.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/11/28/obama-fought-against-eliminating-filibuster-2005#ixzz2lJV8bTr8
-
168 presidential nominees have been filibustered under all presidents,82 under Obama. something had to be done
-
-
the times are a changin
-
the times are a changin
Typical communist tyrant mentality
-
again dummy 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered under all presidents,82 under Obama. something had to be done
-
again dummy 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered under all presidents,82 under Obama. something had to be done
No - maybe Obama needs to stop nominating communists and responding to requests on all the scandals and corruption and treason in his Admn
-
He's such a friggin liar. An embarrassment to the Senate.
-
No - maybe Obama needs to stop nominating communists and responding to requests on all the scandals and corruption and treason in his Admn
what are you going to do after 8 years of Obama ???,get a girlfriend,go out and see the world ,or stay in for 8 years of Clinton :D :D :D
-
again dummy 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered under all presidents,82 under Obama. something had to be done
Something will be done. Soon. Hug your obama doll extra tight when you go to sleep tonight...people all over the world are getting sick of the Left
-
Something will be done. Soon. Hug your obama doll extra tight when you go to sleep tonight...people all over the sorld are gettinv sick of the Left
hahahaha you guys have been crying a river since 2008,2012 the landslide was coming,and now the people are sick of the left :D :D :D :D
-
I doubt if the Dems will ever have to worry about losing another election. Between millions and millions of dead people and illegals voting for them, hood rats hitting the polls 10 times a day in exchange for malt liquor and Newports, NBPP thugs scaring Republicans away from the polls, stupid and guilt-ridden white liberals voting Dem no matter what, and Soros' company rigging the voting machines, it's unlikely many of them will ever get voted out.
-
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/biden-in-2005-i-pray-god-dems-dont-pursue-naked-power-grab-nuclear-option-in-majority
Hypocrisy
-
168 presidential nominees have been filibustered under all presidents,82 under Obama. something had to be done
actions have consequences,when you block everyone.you get what you deserve ;D
-
168 presidential nominees have been filibustered under all presidents,82 under Obama. something had to be done
actions have consequences,when you block everyone.you get what you deserve ;D
Are you implying that they're doing something illegal, or that they're doing something you don't like.
Because if you're saying you don't like the statistics so the dems clearly have to change the rules, then I don't think you have a very effective argument.
-
168 presidential nominees have been filibustered under all presidents,82 under Obama. something had to be done
You gonna stick with that when Repubs take back the senate?
-
Norm Ornstein: Republicans Forced Reid's Hand On The Nuclear Option
SAHIL KAPUR – NOVEMBER 21, 2013, 1:02 PM EST
Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, told TPM that Republicans forced Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to "go nuclear" after his Democratic majority took the historic step Thursday and ended the filibuster for executive nominees and non-Supreme Court judicial nominees.
"For whatever reason, the Republicans decided to go nuclear first, with this utterly unnecessary violation of their own agreement and open decision to block the president from filling vacancies for his entire term, no matter how well qualified the nominees," Ornstein told TPM in an email. "It was a set of actions begging for a return nuclear response."
He also speculated that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) secretly wanted Democrats to go nuclear so he could use the same tactic to end the filibuster entirely if and when Republicans take the majority.
"McConnell's threat, it seems to me, makes clear the strategy: let Dems take the first step, and we will then bear no blame when we entirely blow up the Senate's rules after we take all the reins of power," he said. "That other Republicans like Corker, McCain, Alexander, Murkowski and so on, went along, shows how much the radicals and anti-institutionalists now dominate the Republican Party. Which is sad indeed."
-
Communists and tyrants always have an excuse for their crimes
-
Communists and tyrants always have an excuse for their crimes
Listening to these worthless sacks of shit, including Odrama, from 05 is off the charts disgusting.
-
Norm Ornstein: Republicans Forced Reid's Hand On The Nuclear Option
SAHIL KAPUR – NOVEMBER 21, 2013, 1:02 PM EST
Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, told TPM that Republicans forced Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to "go nuclear" after his Democratic majority took the historic step Thursday and ended the filibuster for executive nominees and non-Supreme Court judicial nominees.
"For whatever reason, the Republicans decided to go nuclear first, with this utterly unnecessary violation of their own agreement and open decision to block the president from filling vacancies for his entire term, no matter how well qualified the nominees," Ornstein told TPM in an email. "It was a set of actions begging for a return nuclear response."
He also speculated that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) secretly wanted Democrats to go nuclear so he could use the same tactic to end the filibuster entirely if and when Republicans take the majority.
"McConnell's threat, it seems to me, makes clear the strategy: let Dems take the first step, and we will then bear no blame when we entirely blow up the Senate's rules after we take all the reins of power," he said. "That other Republicans like Corker, McCain, Alexander, Murkowski and so on, went along, shows how much the radicals and anti-institutionalists now dominate the Republican Party. Which is sad indeed."
'Radicals'...lol oh brother. Funny how's its always the conservatives-you know, the type that founded this country and created the friggin government structure in the first place- are the 'radicals'.
The Leftists are the real radicals and extremists.
"Wahhhhhh we are trying real hard to force liberal socialist ideology and policy on the united states and those darn conservative 'radicals' are getting in our way!!! They want to protect and preserve the founding ideals of this nation...waaaah such 'extremists'!!!" Hahahahahha oh brother.
-
Harry Reid in 2005.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/17/AR2005051701425.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/17/AR2005051701425.html)
Harry gonna Harry.
In 05' it was bad. Now in 13' rolls are reversed and dirt harry wants to change the rules.
Makes me sick.
The rules sucked because they were being unfairly exploited. So they were changed. They left the rules unchanged for the Supreme Court so even if I were a conservative, it wouldn't seem so bad to me.
Some of you guys crack me up. Tyranny? Buh-buh-bullshit. Our system of government is not static; One of the best things about it is that the system can be changed some by popular demand.
And, c'mon, this happens in every sport, doesn't it? (I wish I could cite some NFL examples but I'm not much of a fan.)
Sorry if I'm not willing to join the crowd that is doing the equivalent of railing against that newfangled 24-second clock. Just doesn't make sense to me.
-
168 presidential nominees have been filibustered under all presidents,82 under Obama. something had to be done
This.
-
These liberal communists and traitors and thugs know that in 2014 that are going to get wiped out ala 2010
Aren't you the "Landslide Coming" guy? If so, you might want to hold off on the predictions...
-
Yup, that's right:
Obamacare Delays May Create Election Bomb for Democrats
Some of Obamacare’s most damaging political narratives will be getting a fresh look right before next year’s midterms, thanks to delays in the law’s implementation.
Canceled insurance plans are the most obvious example. President Obama said last week that insurers can un-cancel certain policies for another year, a move largely designed to appease nervous Democrats. But a one-year delay simply means that cancellation notices will resume next October—just weeks before many of those same Democrats will face voters for the first time since voting to pass the Affordable Care Act.
And that’s not the only political threat lurking just ahead of the 2014 midterms. The White House also delayed the law’s employer mandate until 2015. That means employers will be deciding in mid- to late 2014 whether they’re going to offer health benefits under the mandate—and whether to cut employees’ hours to avoid providing them with health care.
“They’re concentrating everything in the fall of next year, and that’s a very dangerous time to be doing it,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a conservative economist who leads the American Action Forum.
The fact that millions of individual insurance policies were canceled this year was not a side effect of the Affordable Care Act; rather, it was one of the trade-offs required to make the law’s coverage guarantees work.
Those trade-offs can be politically difficult, but prolonging the issue until next year “just extends the pain for them,” Holtz-Eakin said. He was surprised that the administration and congressional Democrats didn’t simply bite the bullet now—a year before the midterms. He called it the “rip-the-Band-Aid approach.”
“This is one where, inexplicably, the wheels came off. They usually think through the politics of these things pretty clearly,” Holtz-Eakin said.
Still, although plans will have to be canceled again next October, there are reasons to believe the issue won’t be as damaging as it has been over the past two months. For starters, it’s not clear how many plans will actually be extended for another year. Several states have rejected Obama’s proposal, and insurers aren’t sure whether it’s worth the trouble to resurrect policies they have already canceled.
Consumers whose plans are canceled next year will also have a much easier time finding a replacement. Because HealthCare.gov, the primary Obamacare enrollment website, was functioning so poorly this year, consumers were seeing their plans canceled yet had no easy way to even find out whether they could get tax subsidies to help buy a new policy.
Jim Manley, a Democratic strategist and a former communications adviser to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Democrats’ anxiety over plan cancellations will subside if the administration meets its goal for fixing HealthCare.gov by the end of this month.
The impact of the employer mandate is less clear. Tracy Watts, who leads the national health reform team at the Mercer consulting firm, said employers generally firm up their health care plans by Labor Day, with some smaller firms waiting until October.
The biggest effect of the employer mandate, she said, will be on the roughly one-third of employers affected by the law’s definition of a full-time employee. Businesses must provide coverage to everyone who works at least 30 hours per week (not 40), a threshold most employers aren’t used to.
Republicans have already seized on anecdotal reports of businesses capping workers at 29 hours per week to avoid providing health care benefits. Mercer’s research suggests that’s not a common practice—only about 10 percent of employers say they’re considering capping workers’ hours instead of providing health benefits, according to the firm’s surveys.
“Most of them are planning to extend benefits to that segment of their workforce,” Watts said.
But Republicans surely will still attack Democrats over anecdotal reports of people having their hours cut. Some of the highest-profile anecdotes before the mandate was delayed came from partisan business owners who threatened to cut workers’ hours for political purposes, like the Florida restaurant owner who said he would cut workers’ hours and add an “Obamacare surcharge” to his customers’ bills.
Moreover, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is expecting deeper cuts than Mercer. The chamber’s surveys found that more than 20 percent of franchise owners said they have already replaced full-time workers with part-timers to avoid the coverage mandate.
Manley said he’s not worried about the employer mandate’s timing. The vast majority of employers already provide health insurance, he noted, and modestly extending those benefits isn’t a major change to the health care system.
“The Republicans are going to seize on everything they can, but I’m not so sure I see the employer mandate as a problem,” Manley said “It’s not a dramatic policy change. It’s something folks are comfortable with.”
This article appears in the November 21, 2013, edition of NJ Daily as Obamacare Delays Push Tough Issues Closer to Elections.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/obamacare-delays-may-create-election-bomb-for-democrats-20131120
Keyword: "May"
-
LOL - O-THUG is below 40% and dropping. 2014 is going to be 2010 all over again. Democrat communists and Marxists are going to get wiped out
-
You gonna stick with that when Repubs take back the senate?
Sure, why not? Wouldn't be fair otherwise.
-
Communists and tyrants always have an excuse for their crimes
That's very compelling. lol
If she floats, she's a witch, right?
-
LOL - O-THUG is below 40% and dropping. 2014 is going to be 2010 all over again. Democrat communists and Marxists are going to get wiped out
So...landslide coming?
-
So...landslide coming?
Yup
-
168 presidential nominees have been filibustered under all presidents,82 under Obama. something had to be done
actions have consequences,when you block everyone.you get what you deserve ;D
I agree. Get a president who can nominate worthy candidates.
-
How dare those darned Republicans protest anything and not go along with everything Obama and his lackeys know is right for everyone else!
-
How dare those darned Republicans protest anything and not go along with everything Obama and his lackeys know is right for everyone else!
Clearly you are a racist.
-
Clearly you are a racist.
-
;D
-
;D