The language, pushed by the National Rifle Association in the final weeks of the 2010 debate over health care and discovered only in recent days by some lawmakers and medical groups, is drawing criticism in the wake of this month’s schoolhouse massacre of 20 children and six educators in Newtown, Conn. Some public health advocates, worried that the measure will hinder research and medical care, are calling on the White House to amend the language as it prepares to launch a gun-control initiative in January….
Why Is Obamacare Raising Premiums on Young Adults?
Many Americans are worried about the cost of Obamacare, and the opening of the health-care exchanges has millions of would-be insurance buyers seeing rates they’ll pay for the first time. Several studies have shown that young adults in particular are likely to pay more under the Affordable Care Act. But why is this the case, and what impact will it have on Obamacare’s success?
In the following video with Dan Caplinger, the Fool’s director of investment planning and author of the special free report “Everything You Need to Know About Obamacare,” Motley Fool health-care bureau chief Max Macaluso asks Dan about the controversial topic of why many young adults will pay more. Dan cites one study that points to increases for young adults in all 50 states, with very large increases in some areas of the country. Among the reasons are the fact that many young adults prefer lower-cost policies that don’t provide as comprehensive coverage as Obamacare requires, essentially forcing them to upgrade to coverage that many of them don’t believe they need. Moreover, technical aspects of the Affordable Care Act also promote more even distribution of insurance premium costs across the age spectrum, potentially putting some of the overall health-care burden on young adults that they otherwise wouldn’t have to bear.
Max and Dan conclude with a discussion of the potential investing fallout from higher premiums on young adults. With President Obama and former President Clinton both pointing to the need for young adults to participate in the health-insurance exchanges for Obamacare to reach its full potential, a failure to attract enough young adults could cause problems for the program and for WellPoint (NYSE: WLP ) , which has been most aggressive in establishing exchange-based coverage options. Yet even UnitedHealth (NYSE: UNH ) and Humana (NYSE: HUM ) , which haven’t participated as much as WellPoint, could see fallout if young adults give up on seeking health insurance entirely.
TWG: And now they whine and moan about the very travesty we’ve tried warning them about. The stupid little SOB’s supporting the obama regime, all the while ridiculing us, demonizing us, assaulting us, violating our rights and spitting in our faces as we tried to warn them about this mess they so enthusiastically embrace. Just wait until they find out they’ve been embracing and advocating for their own slavery, suffering and total demise by the very hooves of those they’ve been brainwashed to idolize. Here’s your “hope and change” you stupid little smug-faced assholes. You can thank the so-called “educators” and your apathetic, uncaring parents for destroying your feeble little minds. You have embraced your own demise, and I no longer feel ANY sympathy for you. Now get to work. YOU have bills to pay. BIG bills. And may the hammers and sickles sit lightly across your scrawny little necks as you lick the hooves that feed you gruel. After what you’ve done to me, as I’ve been out here fighting for YOU, I won’t shed a single tear for you when you find yourselves on your knees. You wanted obama’s “hope & change”, HERE IS ONLY THE BEGINNING OF YOUR SUFFERING.
OK, something needs to be done to these lying lunatics. Here’s some ideas:
A) Test them for drug and alcohol abuse. If they refuse the testing, put them into straight jackets and force it
B) If found not under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, put them into straight jackets, arrest convict and punish them accordingly for their numerous crimes and treason
C) Put them each in straight jackets. apply ball gags and force them to listen to the reading of the Bible, PARTICULARLY the Ten Commandments, ten times each
D) Put them in straight jackets, ball gag them and put them to pasture with a pack of those wolves and pitbulls they Love so much.
E) Put them into straight jackets, put porky pig masks on them and put them into a room filled with muslim terrorists they Love so much. Leave them there for at least a week
F) Put them into straight jackets and lobotomize them
Watch and listen to this deranged LUNATIC tell the world that her messiah, obama has “CUT THE DEFICIT IN HALF!” This would be laughable if these monsters weren’t so deeply evil and diabolical.
OK, OK….. I’m starting to like Judge Jeanine Pirro these days. She is starting to call this horrid regime out in NO uncertain terms. Too bad more “journalists” aren’t telling the truth in this way…..
Once AGAIN, the obama regime lies to, then gives both middle fingers to our Beloved Veterans. How can ANY Veteran support this marxist regime after what they’ve done to them? How can ANYONE support this trash? Anyone supporting this IS a MARXIST TRAITOR.
TWG: Another reason the lefties are getting so involved in Veterans causes. Notice how they’ve suddenly created a plethora of groups “dedicated” to returning Veterans? They’re diligently working to get as many Veterans as possible labeled with the “PTSD” illness in order to disarm them. Liberals involved in Veteran’s health and well being is a ruse. Don’t fall for it, Veterans. Their goal is to disarm you, drug you up and steal your rights.
Veterans’ gun rights a sticky issue in defense bill
Published December 03, 2012
Sen, Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., left, talks with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., on Capitol Hill in Washington, during President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address in Washington. (AP)
WASHINGTON – Should veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their own financial affairs be prevented from buying a gun?
The issue, for a time last week, threatened to become the biggest sticking point in a $631 billion defense bill for reshaping a military that is disengaging from a decade of warfare.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., sought to amend the bill to stop the Veterans Affairs Department from putting the names of veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their finances into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which prohibits them from buying or owning firearms.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., objected, saying the measure would make it easier for veterans with mental illness to own a gun, endangering themselves and others.
“I love our veterans, I vote for them all the time. They defend us,” Schumer said. “If you are a veteran or not and you have been judged to be mentally infirm, you should not have a gun.”
Currently, the VA appoints fiduciaries, often family members, to manage the pensions and disability benefits of veterans who are declared incompetent. When that happens, the department automatically enters the veteran’s name in the Criminal Background Check System.
A core group of lawmakers led by Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., has for several years wanted to prohibit the VA from submitting those names to the gun-check registry unless a judge or magistrate deems the veteran to be a danger. This year’s version of the bill has 21 co-sponsors. It passed the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee by voice vote, a tactic generally reserved for noncontroversial legislation. Coburn’s amendment to the defense bill contained comparable language.
“All I am saying is, let them at least have their day in court if you are going to take away a fundamental right given under the Constitution,” Coburn said in the Senate debate last Thursday night.
Congressional aides said Coburn will likely drop his effort to amend the defense bill with his proposal, but that he intends to try again on other bills coming to the Senate floor.
The number of veterans directly affected by the VA’s policy doesn’t appear to very large. Only 185 out of some 127,000 veterans added to the gun-check registry since 1998 have sought to have their names taken off, according to data that the VA shared with lawmakers during a hearing last June.
Still, the legislation over the years has attracted strong support from the National Rifle Association and various advocacy groups for veterans.
“We consider it an abject tragedy that so many of our veterans return home, after risking life and limb to defend our freedom, only to be stripped of their Second Amendment rights because they need help managing their compensation,” Chris Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist, wrote last year in an editorial.
The NRA did not respond to queries from the AP about Coburn’s latest effort.
Dan Gross, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said gun control advocates consider the VA’s current policy reasonable.
“We’re talking about people who have some form of disability to the extent that they’re unable to manage their own affairs,” Gross said. “If you’re deemed unable to handle your own affairs, that’s likely to constitute a high percentage of people who are dangerously mentally ill.”
Tom Tarantino, chief policy officer for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said veterans with a traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder but who pose no threat to others are possibly being barred from gun ownership. The current restrictions might even be a disincentive for veterans to seek needed treatment, he said.
“We want to remove these stigmas for mental health treatment. It’s a combat injury,” Tarantino said. “They wouldn’t be doing this if you were missing your right hand, so they shouldn’t be doing it if you’re seeking treatment for post-traumatic-stress-disorder or traumatic brain injury.”
VA officials have told lawmakers they believe veterans deemed incompetent already have adequate protections.
For example, they said, veterans can appeal the finding of incompetency based on new evidence. And even if the VA maintains a veteran is incompetent, he can petition the agency to have his firearm rights restored on the basis of not posing a threat to public safety.
While I’m sad for the American Conservatives who have to suffer this, I wouldn’t give the teeniest, tiniest, turdiest turd about the DIMS who have to suck this up. THIS is what “social justice” looks like. HA! They get what they voted for. Just wait until they see how many companies are shutting down because of the obamacare scheme. I’ve seen lists that are JAW DROPPING. Those that voted for marxism are about to see what consequences look like. BOOT MARKS ACROSS THEIR SCRAWNY LITTLE NECKS AND WHIP MARKS ACROSS THEIR BONY, BOWED BACKS. I’ll spit on their DAMNED graves. “Elections have consequences” SUCKERS.
Sandy-Ravaged New Jersey Families Face $6,933 Tax Hike in Fiscal Cliff Stalemate
(CNSNews.com) – Families in Hurricane Sandy-ravaged New Jersey will face the highest tax increase as a percentage of their income – 6.82% or about $6,933 more in taxes — if Congress does not reach an agreement on the fiscal cliff tax issues during the lame-duck session, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation.
In its study of how the fiscal cliff would affect typical families in each state, the Tax Foundation reports that if the numerous tax provisions that are due to expire on Dec. 31 are not changed, a four-person family in New Jersey with a median income of $101,682 will see its taxes go up at a rate 6.82 percent of its income, which translates into about $6,933.
The tax issues in question are the expiration of the Bush tax rates, which also include the elimination of the 10 percent tax bracket and the reduced deduction for married filers; ending the 2 percent cut to employee-side Social Security taxes; and the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Maryland was ranked second by the Tax Foundation because a four-person family there, with a median income of $106,707, would see its taxes go up 6.74 percent as a percentage of income, or about $7,194.
Connecticut, ranked third, would see taxes for a family of four go up by 6.62 percent, or $6,653.
All five states with the top tax increases are “blue states,” which President Obama won in the 2012 presidential election. But so are four out of the bottom five states with the exception of Kansas.
Top Five Tax Increases Tax Increases as % of Income
#1 – New Jersey $6,933 6.82%
#2 – Maryland $7,194 6.74%
#3 – Connecticut $6,653 6.62%
#4 – Massachusetts $6,632 6.53%
#5 – New Hampshire $5,660 5.81%
Forty states would see tax increases between $3,000 and $3,999. Six states would see an increase between $4,000 and $4,999 and three would see increases between $6,000 and $6,999.
New Hampshire would be the only state to see a tax increase between $5,000 and $5,999 and Maryland would be the only state to see a tax increase over $7,000.
Bottom Five Tax Increases Tax Increases as % of Income
#50 – Washington $3,362 4.12%
#49 – Hawaii $3,453 4.16%
#48 – Colorado $3,646 4.29%
#47 – Kansas $3,227 4.31%
#46 – Illinois $3,417 4.32%
The potential for tax increases on millions of U.S. taxpayers is still possible, the Tax Foundation explains, and would be especially devastating for lower-income families because of the changes to the child tax credit; the elimination of the 10 percent bracket, which would go back to 15 percent; and the reduced standard deduction for married filers — all of which are provisions in the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts.